Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-04/21/2004Albert J. Krupski, President James King, Vice-President A_r t ie Foster Ken PoIiwoda Peggy A. Dickerson Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-1366 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MINUTES Wednesday, April 21, 2004 7:00 PM Present were: Albert J. Krupski, Jr., President James King, Vice-President Artie Foster, Trustee Kenneth Poliwoda, Trustee Peggy Dickerson, Trustee E. Brownell Johnston, Esq. Assistant Town Attorney for Trustees Lauren Standish, Secretarial Assistant CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 at 8:00 a.m. TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve, TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES. NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. WORKSESSION: 6:00 p.m. TRUSTEE DICKERSON moved to Approve, TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of January 21,2004, February 25, 2004 and March 24, 2004. TRUSTEE KING: I have a couple minor corrections on March. On Page 25, last paragraph, I think it's a quote by Al. "1 recommend no application denied until the application's amended. I think what you meant to say was I recommend no action be taken. So change application to action. And on Page 54, first paragraph almost down at the bottom, change the word "nose" to no." No ability. I'll make a motion to approve Board of Trustees 2 April 21, 2004 with those corrections. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES. I. MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly report for March 2004. A check for $5890.59 was forwarded to the Supervisor's office for the General Fund. II. PUBLIC NOTICES are posted on the Town Clerk's bulletin board for review. III. APPLICATIONS FOR AMENDMENTSNVAIVERS/CHANGES: TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We have nine items on the agenda for Amendments, Waivers and Changes. They're not really public hearings, however, anyone's welcome to speak on any of them. If you're interested, please be ready and use the microphone to identify yourself. 1. JIM NEUMANN requests an amendment to Permit #1253 to extend the fixed portion of the dock 20' and install four new pilings, re-sink pilings for floating dock, 6' by 20' and 6' by 16' ramp with two pilings. Located: 750 East Mill Road, Mattituck. SCTM #107-1-1. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'd like to make that as a motion. Is there a second? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh All in favor?. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KING: I'm going to abstain on this one. 2. ANNA ACKER requests an amendment to Permit #5777 to convert the crawl space of the existing dwelling to a full basement. Located: 855 Pine Neck Road, Southold. SCTM #70-5-33. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: When was field inspection? MS. STANDISH: We didn't get a chance to see it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is this the permit we were looking for? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just consider the housing part tonight. This is the one the little shack down at the end of Pine Neck. TRUSTEE,DICKERSON: Okay. TRUSTEE'KRUPSKh We drove down there. Do you remember the house? Board of Trustees 3 April 21, 2004 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes. I didn't understand the difference between what we were seeing and what was on the agenda. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh All I want to see is the survey. Do you have the survey? You don't have a survey with you do you? MS. ACKER: Doesn't have the new plan as far as the house plan; do you need that? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's what we need; do you have that? MS. ACKER: No, I don't have that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Where would it be in relation to what's existing? MS. ACKER: This is what's existing right now. It's going to be right here. Straight back L in here (indicating). TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We have been there a number of times through the Fast few years. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: As far as the hay bales, gutters and all that? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh You're going to have to put this on a survey for the Building Department. MS. ACKER: Everything's going to be -- cesspool's going to be moved. I need to get Health Department so it's really now we're actually looking, the Building Department would rather 'us tear it down and start all over again. So that's wher~b we're at. $o priginally we didn't need to go through all thht the DEC gave us the approval for the basement, then the engineer werft out and said the house couldn't withstand. Then we went b,ack to the DEC, they have no problem as long as we dofft come any forward, which we're not. We're sf(ayir~g righ.t in our original envelope. TRU~3TEE KRUISSKh What are the dimensions of the new house? MS. ACKER: 29~:11" by 50'. TRU.~TEE KRUPSKI: Under now our new code you'd be required to pu..t. UP hay bales. Under our new code you need to put in dry w~ells and gutters to contain roof runoff and also hay bales, during construction, stake hay bales I would guess arouQ¢ the 10 foot contour. I don't know what the DEC - why did the DEO.issue a permit? Because there's a 10 foot contour, and th.!ay;ger~erally issue a nonjurisdiction above the 1~) foot bont0u..r; d'o you know? MS. ~CKER: I have no idea. TRUSTEE KRUP~31q: Their permit is only to excavate 29 cubic yards of soi! to construct your new basement foundation. MS. A, CKER: It's gojr~g to be reapplied to the new house plan, and they're g_eirfg to make the amendment to that prese~nt DEC perrhit to give me a new one for the entire house. TRU~'I'EE KRUPS.Kh I see this is for the old one. What I'd Board of Trustees 4 April 21, 2004 rather do is issue an approval subject to before you get the permit, you would have to submit the survey showing hay bales, dry wells and gutters, and the actual gutters. MS. ACKER: On the survey you want to have hay bales? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Yes. The surveyor will draw them in. MS. ACKER: That should not be a problem. We have to have it for the Building Department. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh As soon as you give us the survey, we can look at it and approve it; then you can go to the Building Department. MS. ACKER: Okay. Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Is that good, Artie? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Ken. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: No problem. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Peg? TRUS'f'EE'DICKERSON: Okay. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Make a motion to approve the application with the condition that we get the requested information of the hay hal6 line and the dry wells and gutters and the house location all put on the survey. TRUSTEE ~KING: Second. TRUSTEIb KRU.PSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES. 3. Peter C. Sterling on behalf of CHARLES BANK requests an Amendment to Permit #5680 to include a Iow stone wall and small arbor. Located: 1385 Bayshore Road, Greenport. SCTM #53-4-3. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I looked at this structure. Looked like it was going to be on the side yard. So I'll make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor?. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Artie. 4. Docko, Inc. on behalf of ROLLA CAMPBELL requests an amendment to Permit #5201 to add 24 (plus/minus) linear feet of 4 foot wide fixed wood pile and timber pier extension and a 30 (plus/minus) linear foot by 4 foot wide wood fixed %", a boat lift including associated braced support piling and relocate three braced tie-off pilings all water ward of the apparent high water line. Located: Private Road, Fishers Island. SCTM #4-4-16. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I looked at this, Jim. I think you had looked at this before, had you not? TRUSTEE KING: No, I don't think so. Board of Trustees 5 April 21, 2004 TRUSTEE FOSTER: I thought there was a note in here. TRUSTEE KING: Possibly I looked at that but a long time ago. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Okay, well, I looked at it, there's this boat lift right next door and he obviously wants to get out to a little deeper water. Looks to be quite shoal. There's a lot of rocks in there where the existing dock is, and based on what's in the neighborhood, I really didn't see much of a problem with it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you have any information for us, Mr. Nielsen? MR. NEILSEN: Keith Neilsen, acting on behalf of the Campbells. I don't believe that in our correspondence we have. copied you with all of the essential correspondence from neighbors. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I have the file here. MR. NEILSEN: And other agencies including the New York D.epartment o~ State and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. I'd like to. point out that as a result of the Department of State, they specifically requested that the boat lift be taken out of tl~e application and I met with Mr. Chuck HamiltOn of. the DEC on the Island, and he felt the same. So the applicati0i~ has been modified. I believe that you have copies of ~hatapplication, but what I've prepared here is a 24" by 36't ctr~ving that shows the original application with an "L" shad'ed pier extension and the boat lift. The existing pier ends here, and the existing float system is here, but I~asically the float is perpendicular to the incoming waves, and it's unstable. It's difficult to use. A fixed, p[~'r.is, a better arrangement for boating. The boat lift in my option is important to their ability to keep a boat atthis Site even for just a weekend because the water can [!et rough at a moment's notice, and if it gets rough, it's difficult, to.~et on and off the boat at this site. So I felt that this Was a better way to do it. In view of the other comments from Mr. Hamilton and the Department of State, we removed it from the project. Th~.second sketch -- TRUSTEE FOSTER: Excuse me for interrupting, but the boat lift has been'eliminated from the application? MR. NI~ILSE~: Yes. TRUSTEE POSTER: Oh, I didn't know that. They're no longer looking for [~ boat lift, so it's just the dock. MR. NEIL$~:~: We'd like to be able to address that in the future. The pier was also requested by the DOS to be smaller, so instead of a 32 foot extension and "L" 20 foot Board of Trustees 6 April 21, 2004 extension and Mr. Hamilton of the DEC recommended that instead of the boat lift, but put a storm tie-off pile so that a boat can be tied off in this direction, clear of the dock structure and ride out the rough weather in that location. The Campbells are agreeable to that as an interim solution. All of these documents have been modified, have been submitted to. the Department of State. The Department of State indicated that they were okay with the project and mailed a letter to the Corps of Engineers. I believe you have a copy of it, if not I can give you a copy. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I have it right here in my hand. MR. NEILSEN: We're now waiting for the Corps of Engineers and the DEC to finish their processing. The DEC had one question a couple of months ago, what was Rolla Campbell's relationship to Klm Campbell, Mrs. Campbell owns the property, Rolla Campbell is malting the application, I think that's all been resolved. So sincb they're husband and wife, I don't think it's a big issue. So, this is tl~e application that we're asking for your approval on th~ straight out pier extension, the 20 foot "L", the storm tie-off pile, the boat lift has been deleted and otherwise I believe that we've complied with everybody's..expressed concerns on this project, and all the stipulations ~n',your curren~ standards have been complied with. The d',eCking wiI[ not be pressure treated, but the substructure ne,ds to be pressure treated because of its exposure to th~ water. The decking we will not use exotic hardwood or pressure treated pine. It will probably be oak. If the~e'are any questions I'd be happy to respond. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I have a question. You said there was a float there one time? MR. NEILSEN: There is a float there now, a seasonal, there is a float. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: In which location? MR. NEILSEN: Sits right here (indicating). TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Any other questions? TRUSTEE KING: I talked to Mr. Hamilton quite a while ago. He said he signed off on it without the boat lift. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Artie you want to make a motion? MR. NEILSEN: if you need another copy of revised plans for your file, I've got some with me. TRUSTEE FOSTER: We don't have a plan showing the reduction from 30 feet to 20 feet. MR. NEILSEN: i tell you what, in order that your file can be complete let me submit this to you. These are signed and Board of Trustees 7 April 21, 2004 sealed drawings. This is a copy of the letter to Mr. Hamilton indicating the reduction of the size of the pier and locating that storm water tie-off. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Okay, this is different from what I have. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Make a motion. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Are we all set here everybody? I'll make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE KING: As perthe revised plans. TRUSTEE FOSTER: As modified by the revised plans. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor? ALL AYES. 5. JMO Environmental Consultants on behalf of E.G. TREMAINE requests an amendment to Permit #5552 to demolish the existing single-family dwelling and construct a new single-family dwelling. Located: Private Road, Fishers Island. SCTM #7-1-2. MR. JUST: Good evening, I'm Glenn Just, JMO Consulting on behalf of Mr. Tremaine. This was a project that was approved about two years ago for quite a substantial size home knocking down an existing dwelling, and we've come back in to request to extend the permit which is due to expire next month and to modify the peri-nit to build a house that is about 50 percent smaller than the one that was previously approved. TRUSTEE KING: Did you say smaller? MR. JUST: Yes. We were there yesterday with Mr. Foster and Donnie Desinkowski. We made a run over the to the Island yesterday to look at the site. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I don't see any problem with. It's pretty straightforward. It's reducing the size of the house seems to be fine. Any questions? TRUSTEE KR.UPSKI: No, I don't. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Peggy? TRUSTEE DiCKERSON: No. TRUSTEE, FO~.STER: Ken? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: No. TRUS'EBE FOS:.-I'ER: No? Make a motion to approve the applicatiqp as requested for amendment. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE FQSTER: All in favor?. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE FQ'STER: So carried. 6. J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on behalf of FRANOES E, NEILSEN requests an amendment to Permit #5172 to construct a screened porch, deck and boulder wall. Located: Board of Trustees 8 April 21, 2004 East End Road, Fishers Island. SCTM # 5-1-8. MR. JUST: Once again, Glenn Just, J.M.O. Consulting, on behalf of Frances E. Neilsen. This is one that goes back to 2002. We originally got an approval to construct the deck in the screened porch addition to extend the permit but at that time a boulder wall was installed as well. There are new owners on the property now, and they're just trying to get a CO on the property for work that was previously done. This was another site that we looked at yesterday. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Do you remember this? Did you see this before? This is a porch that was puts on by the previous owner. It wasn't permitted and the house was sold, and this gay inherited the problem: Everything's done. It's been done for a while. Actually, those pictures aren't recent, are they, Glenn? MR. JUST: No. I think that's when you were there in August, Jim. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I took those pictures, that was last August. TRUSTEE FOSTER: It's even more heavily vegetated now. MR. JUST: There was a lot of clearing done. TRUSTEE FOSTER: There's really no environmental issues there at this point in time. TRUSTEE FOSTER: There was a permit on it, but not for the porch? MR. JUST: Exactly. MR. JOHNSTON: When is that going to expire? MR. JUST: I believe it was issued on April 25, 2002, due to exPire three days from today. MR, JUST: There was extensive clearing done on the site. They did pay a fine to the DEC under their freshwater wetlands law. There wasn't any request by the DEC for any restoration. It was mostly mowing, not clearing. And a lot oflhe pepperbush and stuff that they mowed is starting to come back pretty well now. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: There was some large trees also. MR. JUST: Yeap. TRUSTEE FOSTER: It's not grass. It's all grown back natural. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: But there were large trees? MR. JUST: There were a lot of large trees removed. There was some Iimbing done on the trees that they left to create vistas. The trees are still in great shape. Admittedly, a lot of stuff was removed but as of yesterday when we were there, they're in fine shape. Board of Trustees 9 April 21, 2004 TRUSTEE FOSTER: I think it was tastefully done, was that the term? MR. JUST: That was the term we learned yesterday. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Did you ever pick an elevation? Give it to Peggy. MR. JUST: I think if it's a matter of creating a buffer zone or nondisturbance zone, there would be no problem with that at all, TRUSTEE FOSTER: There was 70 some feet, 60 some? MR. JUST: The wall was at its closest point 64 feet from the wetlands line. TRUSTEE FOSTER: 64. So give them 20 feet outside the wall. They need some room. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: 50 foot. TRUSTEE FOSTER: 50 foot they only had 63 feet from the wetlands to the wall. MR. JUST: Most places it's 98, 97, high 90s. TRUSTEE FOSTER: All right, that's good. (ConversatiOn) TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Somebody make a motion. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I will when you tell me what you want to do. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Let's put a 50 foot buffer in there? TRUSTEE FOSTER: 50 foot okay, that's it? Make a motion to approve the request with the condition that there be a 50 foot nondisturbance buffer from the wetlands. Get a second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE FOSTER: So moved. Glen. before you go. Let's move back on this TREMAI'NE application for amendment, that permit is due to expire May 22nd of this year. Do you want to include a one-year extension? MR. JUST: I believe that was part of our request. TRUSTEE FOSTER: It's not written in here. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Artie, you have until April 28th to request it. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Do it now subject to a letter of request. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Motion. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Make a motion to amend the Tremaine permit to include a request for a one-year extension. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE FOSTER: So carried. Board of Trustees 10. April 21, 2004 7. Eh-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of SANDRA & FRANK CURRAN requests an amendment to Permit #4666 to install a 3' by 12' double-hinged ramp and 5' by 12' Iow-profile kayak float off existing fixed dock. Located: 560 Fisherman's Beach Road, Cutchogue. SCTM #111-1-16. MR. HERMANN: Rob Hermann of En-Consultants on behalf of the applicant, Sandra and Frank Curran. The application was actually filed with the Trustees during the moratorium phase. They were filed with all agencies in November of'03. We do have approvals from the New York State DEC, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the New York State Department of State Coastal Resoumes Division. The application itself is fairly straightforward, but to give a little bit of background to the Board, the Currans are proposing a seasonal float to be used strictly for access to and dockage of a kayak. So what's being proposed is a 5' by 12' float that would not be installed with pilings or secured with pilings but rather would be attached to the existing fixed dock with a double-hinged ramp. I know the Board has in the past had some concerns about this type of configuration as it might enable the owners to dock an excessive number of motorized craft; however, here the design is such that it would only be able to safely moor a kayak. I have some various ideas as to how to assuage any concerns the Board may have of how there would be compliance with the permit and enforcement, the burden of which would be left in large part with the Currans, but the contractor Tom Samuels of Rambo is also here, and would like to briefly address the Board as well on the application. MR. SAMUELS: Very briefly, I'd like to give some historical perspective to Fisherman's Beach because I've been there so long and probably only Al goes back -- I don't think you do. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I don't remember. MR. SAMUELS: Of course it was originally owned by the Sterling family, then it was bought by George Braun, who subdivi:ded the. entire Fisherman's Beach into lots on both sides of the road. In subsequent years -- and a tie line was granted by the Town Trustees at the time and a quick claim deed was given to part of the creek on would be the creek side. Only five houses have been built on that side, and the only house whose bulkhead is right on the line is the first one that Al File built after he sold me his beach house. So that I guess, theoretically this kayak ramp, Board of Trustees 11 April 21, 2004 float is going to be, Number 1, it's inside the line of the docks which face the file line. I'm not in a position nor do I wish to argue the Trustees' jurisdiction here in any way, shape or form. I think this structure is within Mr. Curran's property. But I never want to be an adversary of the Trustees. I support your position. The purpose of the float is just to be able to take out two kayaks at the most, you can tell that by the width, out of the water because, as you know, kayaks can't be bottom painted and so on and so forth. It's inside the line of an existing dock, which is inside Mr. Curran's property, and it's very benign and probably will be in use for I would say at most three months of the year, whereupon it will be removed and stored, or, in fact; it can be tied up the bulkhead, in the boat slip, whichever you might prefer. The reason that it is different from the Gelblacks' application, which you denied some time ago is that the Gelblacks' bulkhead on the Creek side is actually on the tie line, and. th:at~drock extends, definitely, according to the maps I have, onto Trustees bottom. Those are the comments I have. I've been there forever and had a part in all five houses, piles, foundations and bulkheads and everything else. That~ie line stood up all these years, and I don't think it's eyer been chailenged. I see no need to challenge it. I know of,its existence; it's on all the old VanTyle surveys, amd it was:accepted by the Trustees at the time most of this was done bythe Board, which was Al Goldsmith and Phil Horton and the rest that you know. It's a very small structure. It will in no way interfere with navigation because it's landward of the outer edge of the current dock. I don't want to dwell on this any longer. I think you should consider it favorably. I'll answer any questions you have. It will be hinged, there's no pilings, no penetration i.nto the bottom, very light, it will have a free board of six inches. It's not suitable for a boat. It has no lateral strength whatsoever other than the hinges. It wouldn't be suitable to tying up a boat; there's no need for.a boat in this particular location. It can be placed as close to the existing bulkhead as you like, but I'd like to stay cl~ar.of, the alterna flora patch that grows on the seaward side of the bulkhead. Welcome back, Artie. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Thank you. You said you were going to be brief. MR. SAMUELS: I tried. There are too many years left for me to come up here. Mr. Hermann is now describing me as that Board of Trustees 12 April 21. 2004 elderly gentleman who will come down and look at your property, which I take great offense to. But I really think this is as benign a project as you can conceive of. It's really in need of. Getting in and out of kayaks, unless you can beach them, is extremely difficult, and Mr. Curran's kids and grandkids and Mr. Curran is still able to get into just about anything as big as a Cadillac. But thank you very much for your attention. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Tom, I always enjoy your presentations, just very elegant. MR. SAMUELS: I was thinking about you actually that I hadn't seen you in quite such time. It's nice to see you here. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I had a conversation with Mr. Hermann when we got this ai~plica[ion and my concerns were extra coverage of the underwater land, extra coverage of the creek bottom, the fact that we had denied a similar permit like this in the aTea was a big factor also in Mr. Gelblack, and Whites we denied a couple years ago. I believe that if we approve this application it will absolutely result in a proliferation of probably a dozen docks of that whole stretch from the inlet all the way around the corner, probably a dozen docks, and I believe that would result in everyone wanting a kayak float or an additional float. What we asked Mr. Gelblack is that if he wanted a float instead of a [ix;ed dJock that he had, he could substitute his fixed dock.with a float; then he would have a float and still have a dock,because that's the way I saw it. I don't know how the rest of the Board -- TRUSTEE D'ICKERSON: I agree. TRU:S'FEE POLIWODA: I agree. TRUSTI~E KRUPSKI: - Board feels about it. MR. S~I~IUEt_S: Fi:rst off, there's no more land available on Fisherman's Beach for a floating dock that I'm aware of. There are no unpurchased lots, there can be no more docks there. Now, 'if you're talking Broad Waters Cove -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No. I mean Fisherman's Beach, where it wraps around by the road bed. MR. SAMUELS: There are no available lots. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh No, but each dock would want an additional float. Each neighbor would say, okay, Mr. Curran has a float maybe we should get an additional float. MR. S~MU.ELS: I don't think that establishes a precedent. I understand that's your concern. I don't think it's a viable concern. Number 1, the water depth is becoming increasingly Board of Trustees 13 April 21, 2004 difficult. It's really a problem and there should be some dredging done, but I'm not going to get into that. So it's only real shoulder boats that can get to the area you're talking about, which is the little horseshoe where Dr. Keating and Jack Bromo have docks. As you go further up Broad Waters -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm not going up that far, just in that stretch that was our concern when we looked at it, that right away it would lead to the domino effect everyone wanting an extra float for kayaks, for jet skis, that sort of small craft. MR. SAMUELS: If Mr. Curran had a floating dock, he could put the kayaks on the floating dock. He doesn't have a floating dock. I'd be loathe to ask him to give up a dock which predates the DEC. Mr. Hermann would like to respond. I'll answer any more questions you might have. MR. HERMANN: Al, after we had that conversation, I gave that a.lot of thought and I spoke to Mr. Curran and I have an ide:a, that I would want to run past the Board because I think your concern is not that there would be some tremendous environmental impact. Your concern appears to be tha~ tRere would be a proliferation of this, would each Person comply, how would you enforce it, and if you allow it for:a Nayak~ then you'd have the guy with the jet ski. The difference, where you can differentiate the application, it's for only non-motorized craft, and it would be only for the storage of a kayak. Mr. Curran could stipulate, the Board could stipulate that there would have to be '100 percent compliance with the permit subject to revo'.c~tion thereof. And you could leave the enforcement burden with the Currans I~y saying this could only begin from whatever you deem the summer, Memorial Day to Labor Day. By Mema~'ialDay he has to notice you that the float is going in, so when the bay constables are doing the rounds, they can confirm that it went in,properly. During the summer, for example, maybe they'd have to supply photographs showing what s'there, and again, rials would induce a bay constable inspection when they're in: the area. And at the end of the year t~ey would have to. notify you they're taking the float out, an[d provide pictures showing that the float has been taken out, pictures of the float stored. And if the Currans failed to do any one, of these parts, any one time, no exceptio.n$, no I was in Florida, no I had a doctor's appointment, whatever, pbrmit revoked with prejudice. Period. I don't think if you issued a permit like that Board of Trustees 14 April 21, 2004 that was for such a specific purpose, for such a seasonal non-motorized craft purpose, that you'd really get anybody else wanting to do that. I mean, Tom would correct me if I'm wrong, but I think even the Gelblacks was for a piling secured float to access motorized craft because it was hard for him to get to the motorized craft from the fixed dock, which actually is why your suggestion was a viable one. He didn't decide to go through with it, but remove the fixed dock, use a float instead. That's not a viable alternative here for the Currans because they don't have a problem accessing their motorized craft from the fixed dock. The fixed dock is sufficient. They're really just trying to provide access at the water level for non-motorized craft on a seasonal basis. Unfortunately, I think six or seven people would probably just do this and wait to get caught. The Currans are approaching you and asking for a permit to do it, and I think they woul~l be agreeable to stipulate these kind of compliance and enforcement conditions at the dsk of losing the permit if they failed. I can't reallysell the project to you any more than that. I think it would be fair of you to consider that if they're wiliing,,to agree to that kind of enforcement burden. Lool~ing .at!your standards, there's really no standard for your permit issuance that this would violate. This really is, as Tom was saying, pretty benign. He cou['d tie up a boat five times the size of this float and the Beard would' have no say so about him doing so. So certainly.this 60 square foot float with a kayak on it would have !ess of an impact than a boat that he could dock there. So I don't thi'nk it's a question of impact; it's question for fear of setting a precedent. So if you could find a wayto diffei'et~tiate this so that it isn't precedent setting, I would as~ you to consider it. TRUSTEE I~ICKER, SON: Rob, I have a question. MR. HERI~IANItI: Yes. TRUSTEE DICKER:SON: The existing dock as is, there's a motorized vehicle that's used already, that's what it's used for. MR. HERMANN: It's an existing fixed dock where a boat is moored, yes. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Why is that not useable for the kayak? MR. HERMANN: Because you can't get down to it, you can't really get down to it. In other words, it requires more than one person to load and unload the kayak. You'd have to take it down and drop it in the water. This way it would Board of Trustees 15 April 21, 2004 have a seasonal storage mechanism, because you can get onto a boat from a fixed dock that's several feet above the water level but you can't get onto a kayak from that height. mean, I believe that's the concern. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Stepping in from four feet up m~ght be a little difficult. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: What's wrong with a ladder or stairs? TRUSTEE FOSTER: You can't get into a kayak from a ladder. MR. HERMANN: If you wanted to leave the burden of proposing some sort of enforcement conditions upon us to give to Honorable Johnston for review and the Board's review I'd be happy to propose something like that if the Board wanted another month to consider it. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: If I was in Mr. Curran's shoes, I'd buy a Carolina skiff and put a little sling in, just slide the kayak right on top of it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We really had that policy of a 6' by 20' float, and tl~en., if we get away from that, incrementally adding, no .rn~tter what it's called whether it's a kayak float or whatever, We're really getting away from that 6' by 20' float, then someone's going to want the jet ski float. Again, !t's a seasonal use, of course it's a seasonal use. MR. HEI~MANN: S6.uthampton Town Trustees consider a jet ski a boat. TheY,don't c~. nsider a kayak a boat. TRUSTEEKRtCPSF(I: It's still the structure that's in the water. MR. HERMANN: That's why I'm saying you can differentiate it, if you make it undesirable to anybody but the applicant, you'don't dsk proliferation. It can only be used for kayaks/non-motorized craft. It can only be used two months a year. It can!t'be installed with pilings. The permit will: be revoked if you dock anything else against it. If you create a situation that's so hostile towards noncompliance, then you're not setting a precedent. It's not the same as saying, hey, I have a 6' by 20' fixed dock and I want to add a 6' by 20' float with two eight inch pil(ngs to it. I mean, it's such a unique application. MR. SAMUEl_S: The argument made in the hearings on the new reg~ulations and eYerything else and everything that's gone on before. It's always been said that eventually site-specific decisions have to be made and will be made, and that was the whole idea to give the Board some latitude. I think this.one just applies. It interferes with nothing and no en~irof~rner~tal impact whatsoever. TRUSTEE~'DICKERSON: I'm just reiterating what we said before, that you alreJ~dy denied one, one or two houses Board of Trustees 16 April 21, 2004 down. MR. HERMANN: It's a different situation. MR. SAMUELS: I didn't hear that. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I was reiterating what Al said that they had been denied. MR. HERMANN: It's not the same project, Peggy. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm just reiterating what was stated. MR. HERMANN: I'm just responding. If you were going to approve something that was identical to what somebody else was denied, yeah, I'd say you're crazy, you're setting yourself up for a lawsuit for the person you denied. But it's a different project for a different purpose. There's no pilings. It's a smaller float. It's not for the same kind of craft. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't see where this isn't going to result in a proliferation. I would say everyone in the creek's going to want a kayak float now. Why wouldn't they? MR. HERMANN: That's just a matter of opinion now. I can't argue with you. I mean, maybe you're right. And maybe everybody now will decide to take up kayaking and want an extra note float for a kayak. TRUSTEE. KRUPSKI: There aren't too many places in the water that don't?,have a couple kayaks. TIS, US-FE..E.FOSTER: DEC permit required. Do you have one? MR. HERMANN: Yes. MR. J(~TI-I~STON: DEC said okay? MR. S~MLJELS: DEG said okay. Corps of Engineers said okay. Department of State said okay. TRUSTEE~ KRUPS.K..I: Ken, what do you think? 'FRUS'PE~Ei POLI~W©DA: I don't agree. I think additional structuEe_.? given beyond what we normally approve and substaffii~liy more !o our policy does set a precedent. It will end;.u~:,being a.float. Everybody will want one. MR. S~LI~ELS: T~at's why we have a Board that makes decisi0~'~;and makes specific decisions on a specific project. ]~'s not a question of everyone wanting one. You can say no at any time. TRUSTEE POLIW©DA: We're saying no now. MR. SAMUELS: Attit~, would you comment on this application, please? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Yes. You want my personal feelings about it? MR. SAMUELS: Yes, please. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I would approve it. TRUSTEE KING: Where this boat house is, is there any place you could launch a kayak, or do something over in that area? Board of Trustees 17 April 21, 2004 MR. SAMUELS: It's a deck and it's high. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think he means a platform or something. MR. SAMUELS: Adjacent to Mr. Curran's house is Bill Baxter's, where he moors his yacht tender. MR. HERMANN: That's the site, Jim. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Is that gentleman sitting next to you the applicant? MR. SAMUELS: Yes, Mr. Frank Curran, my good friend and neighbor. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're really trying to accommodate the applicant at the same time not approve something -- MR. HERMANN: Which I can understand, which is the only reason I'm suggesting -- I mean, I hate to be a proponent of stalling as an excuse to make a decision, but maybe there's a way that this permit could be laid out that it would be impossible to set a precedent. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh If you like, we could meet you on the site next month -- no? TRUSTEE DI.CKERSON: I just -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Phil suggested stairs and a rail or something to h01d onto for stability as opposed to an actual -- MR. HERMANN: I think part of the problem, Mr. Curran, correct me if I'm wrong, it's storage, not just access; in other words, you can just tie the kayak to the pilings, but then it has to be left in at all times and you can't access it properly. MR. JOHNSTON: Do you have a boat on both sides of the dock? MR. H#RMANN: No, just one boat. MR. JOH:NSTON: Put the kayak on one side and the stairs going down. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh In an effort to accommodate. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Jim, I think there's a consideration here that we have to make as far as the applicant not being 30 years old. If he was 30 years old he could probably just jump off-the dock into the kayak. You have to take into consideration the age of these people that are asking for this, aqd how much agility they have to do this. I mean, obviously it's going to be a heck of a lot easier to do what he wants to do with his kayak if he has -- TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's not the person we're denying. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: In the effort to accommodate the appliCant, I would make a suggestion that we table this, then y,o~u could meet us at the beach. MR. HERMANN: I agree. Again, I would repeat the offer and I would direct it to Brownell, there are ways that Boards Board of Trustees 18 April 21, 2004 every day take site-specific cases and site-specific approvals and denials and tailor them to that site so that you don't risk setting a precedent so that somebody who has a sandy beach and all the access in the world comes in and says hey, you gave this thing to Curran new give it to me. Legally if you can protect yourself by differentiating the application, I think you can consider it. Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We'll make that effor[. MR. JOHNSTON: I will be happy to make that effort, Rob. MR. HERMANN: Thank you. MR. SAMUELS: We service over 60 docks in Southampton that have to be removed seasonally, have to be taken off the property. It's a the law. You have to take moorings out, and it's. done..Let me also assure you that l will not be asking for a kayak rack because I might get in it, but I'd never get out of it, and most of the people in there are in the same shape. Thank-you for your consideration and I'll see you on 'Fisherman's Beach in May. TRUSTEE KRU~bSKI: Make a motion to table the application. TRUS:TEE KING: Second. TRUS~TEE KRUPSKh All in favor. ALL AYES. 8. GARDINERS BAY ESTATES HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION, INC. requests an extension to the five-year maintenance dredging Permit #5003 for another five years. Located: Spring Pond, East Marion. SCTM #37-4-18. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I don't have a problem with it. Does anybody have a problem with extending Gardiner's Bay? No? I'll make a motion to extend the permit. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh All in favor?. ALL AYES. 9. Swim King Pools on behalf of GIACOMO CHICCO requests a transfer of Permit # 5730 from Glenn Behr to Giacomo Chicco to install an 18' by 40' rectangle swimming pool approximately 30' to 40' off the house. Located: 2797 Cedar Beach Road, Southold. SCTM #79-8-15.2. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: We've all been to this site, across from the pond in Cedar Beach, wetlands behind. I looked at it, it looked fine. MS. DERMBACH: My name is Mary Dermbach from Swim King Pools. Just here to answer any questions that you may have. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Maybe dry well? MS. DERMBACH: Absolutely, no problem. Our filter doesn't Board of Trustees 19 April 21, 2004 have any -- it's recirculating itself, but we will certainly put a dry well in on the other side so it's far away from that 50 foot nondisturbance buffer. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Five minute break before we start the public hearings. (Whereupon, a short recess was taken.) IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING IN THE MATTER OF THE FOLLOWING APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS UNDER THE WETLANDS ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD. I HAVE AN AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION FROM THE SUFFOLK TIMES. PERTINENT CORRESPONDENCE MAY BE READ PRIOR TO ASKING FOR COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC. PLEASE KEEP YOUR COMMENTS ORGANIZED AND BRIEF. FIVE (5) MINUTES OR LESS IF POSSIBLE TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We're going to start the public hearings. I need a motion to go off the regular public hearings. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So moved. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We have numerous public hearings. There are some that have been postponed and we will not open them, and I'll go over them. Number 7, Louise Moyle. Number 14, Jack DaSilva has been postponed, and just out of curiosity, is there anyone here for Number 14, Jack DaSilva? Number 32 Jeffrey Hallock has been postponed. So we only have 29 tonight. 1. ANNA ACKER requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4' by 4' deck and a 4' by 88' fixed catwalk with a ladder at the seaward end. Located: 855 Pine Neck Road, Southold. SCTM #70-5-33 TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Is there anyone that would like to speak in favor of the application? MS. ACKER: I am the applicant, so. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh W.e took a look at this last week. Did you stake the seaward end of the dock? MS. ACKER: They are. You were there that morning, he was Board of Trustees 20 April 21, 2004 there that afternoon. I took pictures of it, I don't know if that helps you at all. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We approved a dock for the previous owner; is this in any way similar to that approval? MS. ACKER: It's the same dock that Michael Anarella had put in for, but I don't think I had a Trustees because it was a moratorium. I have DEC, I have the Army Corps of Engineers and I have the State approvals. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm looking for what we were going to approve per the last -- I think we better table this because what it says here is slightly different. If you don't mind, we'll table until next month and meet down there at the site. MS. ACKER: What is the discrepancy? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We would have issued a permit June 21, 2000 for a 4' by 78' catwalk to star[ in the upland and extend out no fur[her past the edge of the marsh with six Iow pile pilings to be hand dug throughout the marsh. MR. JOHNSTON: You actually issued that, Al? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh No, it was never issued. It was almost issued. MS. ACKER: Okay. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This was one of those applications that was not done lightly. So I know we went over this quite a bit, and I'd rather we meet out at the site and take a look at the stakes. MS. ACKER: I'll be contacted? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: May 12th will be the day that we would come out, so if you could have it staked for May 12th. MS. ACKER: It's staked. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just make sure it's still staked on the 12th. MS. ACKER: Now, as far as the parameters by the DEC, they have a 4' by 88' approval. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I also see something in here about an Army Corps approval. MS. ACKER: Right, that's in there as well. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All right. We'd rather meet you out there. MR. JOHNSTON: Do we have the DEC permit? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. Is there any other comment on this application? I'll make a motion to table the application. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Ken, you want to take the next one? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: For the record, I abstain from Number 2. Bo~d of Trustees 21 April 21, 2004 TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Peggy, you want to take the next one? 2. ALBERTSON MARINE requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 12,000 square foot steel building for the purpose of servicing boats and a retail store, improved parking area, septic system, and to install a concrete pipe next to Route 25 in the vector ditch. Located: 61205 Main Road, Southold. SCTM # 56-3-13.4 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here to speak in favor of this application? MR. WITSKh I will. Bill Witski from Albertson Marine. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Any comments? I think the Board was okay with this. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I think the only question was if you worked the drainage out with the Town? MR. WITSKI: Correct. I think we're still in that phase unfortunately. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think we would be inclined to put a condition on the permit that you work the drainage out with the Town. MR. WITSKI: Right there's going to be no water runoff on the property, to the existing property or to the wetlands. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That would satisfy us. MR. WITSKh Right. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Anybody else here to speak for or against this application? I'll make a motion to close the hearing; do I have a second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to accept the application for Albertson Marine to construct a 12,000 square foot steel building for the purpose of servicing boats and a retail store with the condition that the drainage system be worked out with the Town. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh With who in the Town? TRUSTEE KING: Be approved by the Town Engineer. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Town Engineer. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: For the record, I recused myself. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor?. ALL AYES. 3. ERNEST H. SCHNEIDER, SR. requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 1,395 square foot single-family dwelling with second-story balcony, second-story deck, stairway with platform, and sanitary system. Located: 915 Lakeside Drive Board of Trustees 22 April 2 I, 2004 North, Southold. SCTM #90-4-5 & 6. TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to speak on this application? MR. SCHNEIDER: Ernest Schneider. This application was approved. I failed to take notice that the application had run out. And that was my whole purpose for resubmitting again. I see the Trustees felt the need to go from the beginning, so here I am. TRUSTEE KING: Are there any other comments? Conservation Advisory Council meeting held the 13th of April resolve to recommend disapproval of it because of the violation. It was issued for clearing with nondisturbance buffer, buffer should be revegetated. What do you want to do with it? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Agree with CAC. TRUSTEE KING: I do too. They recommend disapproval based on the fact there's a violation. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You want to disapprove or table it instead of disapproving it? TRUSTEE KING: Table this. See what's going to happen with the restoration project here. How they work this out as far as the restoration goes. MR. JOHNSTON: I think your procedure is you don't have a choice. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What can you tell Mr. Schneider? TRUSTEE KING: We're just going to have to muddle through the summer, Al. There was a lot of clearing out there. MR. SCHNEIDER: I only took down a couple trees. TRUSTEE KING: There was more than a couple trees taken down, I'm sorry. MR. SCHNEIDER: Whatever I can do to -- TRUSTEE KING: Go to Justice Court, right? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Brownell, won't that come up when the violation is addressed, what he can do to clear that up? MR. JOHNSTON: Right any judge -- TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Isn't that the next step? MR. JOHNSTON: Correct. I'm pretty sure that McCarthy served him; did he serve you; the Bay Constable served you, right? MR. SCHNEIDER: He served my son because I wasn't there at the time. MR. JOHNSTON: He served somebody? MR. SCHNEIDER: Yes. He left his phone number for me to contact him and contact the Trustees that I had been served, which I did, I spoke with Mr. Krupski this morning. I have Board of Trustees 23 April 2 l, 2004 not been able to get a hold of him. I didn't get that until late last night, and I have not been able to contact him. I left a message at the precinct. And I'm doing everything I can to get it done. I've been waiting for this, as I think most of the Trustees know, for three years now, and the only reason that this occurred was because it took so long for the other agencies to give me the approvals, by the time I got all the approvals, this had run out, and I just, as I got my permits, I put them in a folder and the next thing I knew, I sold my house figuring I'm going to build this new house, I have all the approvals, I got the building permit and everything. And then I realized that this was only for two years, so I reapplied right away for a new permit. Three years this has been going on. I understand it's not -- the Trustees have been the first ones to come through with the permit, and unfortunately they're the ones who have the two-year permit. Everyone else is six years and five years. MR. JOHNSTON: But there are two one-year extensions that are easily given. M.R. SCHNEIDER: But I didn't realize that, sir, I was not aware of it. MR. JOHNSTON: You heard earlier today several extensions were given, so I'm sorry. The issue today, Al, the issue as I understand it from Jim -- who's handling this one, Jim? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. MR. JOHNSTON: The issue is not the expiration of the permit and reapplication, that is not what I understand the Trustees are looking at right at the moment. It's the clearing ,arC the violation. So it's interesting the other things that's you've said, but it's not relevant to what they're thin~ihg about right at the moment. Jim, did you explain '(o him that your jurisdiction is 100 feet from the tidal wefla~d;s and any clearing, dead or alive stuff in that area nebd~ a permit?. MR. SCHI~.E;IDIER: You just explained that to me this evening. MRS. scHiNEIDER: We want to do what's right. MR. $CHN. EIDER: I want to do what's right but at the same time I really want to get on with this building. MR. JOHN~STON: I just wanted to articulate what the Trustees are thinl~ing about. TRUSTEE':DICKERSON: The violation has to be addressed first. That has to be taken care of. MR. sc,HN'EI!DER: Pardon me? TRUSTEE' DICKERSON: The violation has to be addressed first. Then once'that is by the Town then you can -- Board of Trustees 24 April 21, 2004 MR. SCHNEIDER: have a May 14th or 16th appearance, can I get it on for next month? TRUSTEE KING: You should be able to. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: As far as replanting or revegetating. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm going to see them tomorrow. MR. JOHNSTON: Jim, did you hear, when was this cutting done to the best of your knowledge? Did you hear that it was February?. TRUSTEE KING: I would say early winter. MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Schneider, you indicated February? MR. SCHNEIDER: It was February, yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Peggy's going to meet with one of the Town attorneys later this week?. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Friday morning. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh And we'll try to resolve this as to what's going to be required of you to get on the agenda next month. MR. SGHNEI'DER: Should I contact the Trustees office? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Yes. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second Jim's motion. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh All in favor? ALL AYES. 4. JOHN AND JOAN WEEGAR request a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling, garage, porches, patio, fencing detached shed and landscaped gardens. Located: 50 Tuthill Road in Southold. SCTM #55-3-21 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the application? MR. WEEGAR: Yes. John and Joan Weegar, we are the applicants. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: When did we first go out on this field inspection; do you recall? MR. WEEGAR: No, I don't. It was in the winter. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I wonder if Artie has seen this one. Have you seen this one, Artie? TRUSTEE FOSTER: No, I have not. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are there any other comments before the Board makes comments? If you look at the plan, I'm trying to find a directional here, on the west side of the garage we want a nondisturbance buffer. The garage shows 35 foot to the property line. The CAC recommended 20 feet. I think that would probably be adequate. So what I would suggest, and I'm open to any other Board's comments, is that you draw a line 20 foot -- have the surveyors draw a line on the survey -- a 20 foot line on the west side of the property. Board of Trustees 25 April 2l, 2004 And what kind of buffer do you want on the wetlands side, on the north side? 50's going to be pretty hard, 40 feet? We're trying to maximize the buffer on the north side of the property from that wetlands. MR. WEEGAR: Did you get the latest copy? Because we moved the house as was requested. MR. JOHNSTON: What is the date of that survey, sir? MR. WEEGAR: July30th. MR. JOHNSTON: We have that. TRUSTEE FOSTER: We have that one. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This is different? MR. WEEGAR: Yes, because I moved the house four feet further away. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh So we're referencing the survey that's stamped by the Town March 19th, but it's last revised December 19th. 20 foot buffer on the west side, and it would wrap around here to the north side 40 foot buffer here on the wetla'nds like that. And that would be nondisturbance; that's that steep bank coming down. Then with that permit you could do whatever within the confines of this, you'd have to put up, during construction, a line of hay bales along this line. MR. WEEGAR: I should have the surveyor or I can draw it in myself? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The surveyor should draw it in. 20 foot in the back, then 40 foot off this line, so you could even make it still have to be 20 foot off this, but this goes down here. It would still have to be 20 foot off this. I don't know where it would end up, somewhere like that. MR. WEEGAR: Follow the line of the wetlands. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Then 40 foot off this and it should show gutters and dry wells for the roof runoff. He could just stamp those. All right, is the Board satisfied with that? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Artie? TRUSTEE FOSTER: It's fine. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Sounds fine. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh All in favor? ALL AYES. TRU$'FEE KRUPSKI: Make a motion to approve the application with the 20 foot nondisturbance buffer on the west side of the prrcFert,y, a 40 foot nondisturbance buffer on the north side ;of the property off of the flagged wetlands, and that during c(~nstruction stake0 hay bales be put in place at that line and dry wells and gutters be put on the survey and in Board of Trustees 26 April 21, 2004 the plans to contain roof runoff. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor?. ALL AYES. MR. WEEGAR: Thank you very much. 5. GERARD GRALTON requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4' by 52' catwalk and install one 8-inch diameter piling 20' offshore of the catwalk for use with the pulley system. Located: 5710 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM #138-2-34 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Because that's my father-in-law, I'm going to recuse myself on that application. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone that would like to comment.on this application. For or against? MR. FARAGUNA: I'm not against him per se, I just have a couple concerps. My name is Paul Faraguna. My family has the property at 5675 Skunl~ Lane, which is the property directly adjacent to Mr. Gralton, and my dock would end up being two 'docks north of his proposed dock. As I started out saying I have no opposition to him having a dock per se, I'm concerned over the overall length of it. It seems like it would end up extending significantly past the line of existing docks on that side of the creek. So boats approaching my dock and the dock that would be directlY adjacent to him, would be forced to make much sharper starboard turns and in the summertime the prevailing wind is south; southwest, coming up that creek, so you would ha~th:e wind directly abeam of you for a much longer period of "rime. Also it see~ns it would be right on the edge of the channel, and i'm concerned, that channel's already getting filled in. It basal been dredged in quite some time, so I'm concerned about silting that would occur by the constant boat traffic that ~ould occur right there on the edge of the channel, but oth~rthan that, I really have no other objections. Thahk you. TRUSTEE POL~/VpDA: Any other comments? MR. ROCHON: 'Gbod evening, my name's Craig Rochon. I'm a dock owner als~ adjacent to the property in question here. And I just,~tAnt to say I just second Paul's concerns. He's. my neighbor also, and I have the same concerns as he ~loes concerning this application. Thank you. TRUSTEE POL~WC)DA: Thank you. Anyone else like to comment on this application? Board? TRUSTEE KING: We basjcally had the same concern. TRUSTEE POI:~¥ODA: We inspected this in the field and we Board of Trustees 27 April 21, 2004 agree with your comments. We believe that the pier line ended, it should be a 4' by 30' catwalk rather than 4' by 52' and the piling 20 foot offshore of that which would keep everyone in line, the pier line would remain in line, and we spoke to the owner on-site and he agreed, and I believe that's what we're going to issue a permit for. Any other comments from the Board? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Any comments from the CAC? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: CAC recommended to disapprove on behalf of Gerard Gralton to construct a 4' by 52' catwalk and install an 8-inch diameter piling 20 foot offshore of the catwalk for use with the pulley system. Their disapproval of the application was because the proposed dock construction includes CCA material. So that's another comment. MS. ROCHON: Patricia Rochon. Can I ask a question? What is the CAC? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Conservation Advisory Council, they're advisory board to the Trustees. MS. ROCHON: Did the DEC also need to inspect it? TRUSTEE KING; Yes, they approved. MS. ROCHON: Did they approve? MR. ROCHON: But you you're approving it as shortened? TRUSTEE' KING: It might have been at the DEC's request that it be a longer pier because they want to see more water depth where there's boating activity. It's a hard point between the Trustees and the DEC because we try to keep the docks as short as possible so you don't obstruct traffic and create problems. It's a difference of opinion, MR. FARAGUNA: With the pilings only 20 feet beyond the edge of the catwalk, it seems like it's only a 20 foot boat so the draftlmust be fairly shallow. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'm sure it is. If the ownerwas here, he'd: comment on it. Apparently he agreed to it. If there's no other comments, I make a motion to close the,public headng. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Public comment? MS. ROCHON: I was wondering if the DEC would approve it at 30 foot if they were saying that they wanted 50 feet; would that change their view of environmental impact? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: As the Trustees own the bottom land, I believe our permit is the primary permit and the applicant would have to adhere to our permit more so than the DEC. MS. ROCHON: I.see, so you can overrule the DEC? MR. JOHNSTON: No, need them both. Board of Trustees 28 April 21, 2004 TRUSTEE KING: You have to go back to DEC and see if they will modify the permit to be consistent with our permit. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh This is unrelated to this. This has happened in the past where the DEC has approved applications for docks that haven't been applied for and then this Board would approve something much smaller, then the applicant has to go back to the DEC. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: If no other comments, I make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor?. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I will make a motion to approve the Wetland Permit on behalf of Gerard Gralton to construct a 4' by 30' catwalk and install one 8-inch diameter piling 20' offshore of the catwalk for use with the pulley system, and I make a comment it shall begin where it was staked in the field,'the c~twaiks will begin where it was staked in the field. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE PODWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I recused myself. Artie, would you take the next one? 6. HELEN W. KEITH requests a Wetland Permit to construct a new residence with pervious driveway. Located: 1060 Willow Terrace Lane in Orient. MS. KEITH: I'm Helen Keith, hello. MR. KEITH: And Bob Keith. And this was a project we talked about at the December work session, 75 foot setback on the last vacat~t lot on Willow Terrace Lane, the Douglas farm next to Billy Hands, and we're asking for the same 75 feet that the other houses have. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I looked at this one, it's fine. TRUSTEE FOSTER: We had all been out there once before. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're familiar with the area. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: 1 inspected this last week, and I found it to be in compliance with all our policies. It has a setback of 100 foot for the septic systems, as well as 75 foot -- MS. KEITH: 75 foot from the bulkhead to the house. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: The only comment I can make to improve the condition is to put a 10 foot non-turf buffer. MR. KEITH: The slope of the land is going to make that happen, and we'll agree to do that also. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there any other comment on this application? Board? If not, Ill make a motion to close Board of Trustees 29 April 21, 2004 the public hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor?. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland Permit to construct a new residence with a pervious driveway. Located: 1060 Willow Terrace Lane, Orient, with the condition that there be a 10 foot non-tuff buffer behind the bulkhead. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES. 8. STEPHEN BURNHAM requests a Wetlands Permit to construct additions and renovations to the existing single-family dwelling, re-grade existing lawn and install a new septic system. Located: Madeline Avenue, Fishers Island. SCTM #6-7-12 TRUSTEE FOSTER: Is there anybody here to speak on this application? No comments. Anybody want to see this survey? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Sure. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I have a couple of them here. Make sure they're all the same. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What is your comment here, Artie? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Well, really none. I thought perhaps the septic system could be moved, but it's very unlikely because of the contour of the property, and I really don't see any impact, It's only 63.5 feet from the flagged wetlands, but it's considerably higher. It's way up in the air. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Why can't they reverse the tank and the leaching pools; could they do that? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Well, I don't think so. I don't think they have enough room to do it. They're pretty close to the house as it is. They'd be even closer if they come up the other way, then you have your water line up there. I looked at this, this is.familiar to me. Was this in last year?. MS. STANDISH: Yes. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Because I looked at this once before. They made some changes. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: This one. MR. JUST: Jim, you were there about two years ago. You had been there. This is around the corner from Larry Loren's house in that little duck pond? TRUSTEE KING: Where is the exiting existing septic? TRUSTEE FOSTER: It's not indicated on here, but it's on the opposite side of the house as the proposed septic system. I believe it's 0ff the deck. Here, this is existing, this is just a new ad'dltion here (indicating). I don't know why Board of Trustees 30 April 21, 2004 they didn't propose it over here unless there's no way they can get a pipe out there. They have got quite a large deck on here. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh What the septic? It would be worse on that side, wouldn't it? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Over here? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Yes. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Well, it would be much closer that way. Given the strength of the lot, I don't really see where it could be anywhere else. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Make a motion. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor?. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Make a motion to approve the application of Stephen. Burnham to construct renovations to existing single-family dwelling, re-grade existing lawn, and install a new septic system, Madeline Avenue, Fishers Island. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor?. ALL AYES. TRU'STEE FOST,,ER: So carried. TRUSTEE KRUP'SKh Do you want to put any-- TRUSTEE FoST, ER: We have to have them, don't they? Do you want to mention it? TRUSTI=E KRUI~SKI: I think it should be on the survey. They should have t,o g~e us a new survey. TRUSTEE FOS-FER: Show the hay bales. TRUSTEE KRU. PSKI: And dry wells. Make a motion to approve it. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I make a motion to approve the application subject to a new survey showing staked hay bales and dry wells for roof runoff. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I'll second that. TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor?. ALL AYES. 9. Docko, Inc. on behalf of JOSEPH PENDERGAST requests a Wetland Permit to construct a pier assembly consisting of an "S" shaped, pile-supported timber pier consisting of 35', 25' and 10' sections, a 40' by 3.5' ramp and a 24' by 8' float secured by four (4) guide pilings and install five (5) mooring pilings. Located: Oriental Avenue, Fishers Es[and. TRUSTEE FOSTER: And we do have some comments. Mr. Neilsen. MR. NEILSEN: My name is Keith Neilsen, I'm the president of Docko, Incorporated, in Mystic. We're representing Mr. Pendergast tonight on this application for a new fixed pier Board of Trustees 31 April 21, 2004 and float. The applicant owns property on Oriental Avenue and the water body in front of his house, the rear of his house is Inner Bay, off Pirates Cove on Fishers Island, south end of West Harbor. The drawings that I've prepared on behalf of this application show the existing site. It's a survey of the west edge of his property, which shows environmental features including a spartina patens, tidal fringe marsh and a spartina alterna flora fringe march, which runs right to the Parsons' property on the south and a small section of fringe marsh which runs to Malanowskis' property to the north. There is a small break in the tidal wetlands which we have located and which causes the reason for the S-shaped pier in this case. Mr. Pendergast is handicapped, so this pier and float system with the elongated ramp is an effort to accommodate his.disabilities but still leave him with viable boating facility. Because Inner Bay is a small body of water, we spent quite a bit of time coordinating this proposal with the Malanowskis to the north and Mr. J. Lester Parsons to the south prior to completing a conceptual design. We have located the pier and float systems so that they do not extend beyond the line of development from the Parson's pier to the south or the Malanowskis' pier to the north. In addition, Mr. Malanowski runs a shellfish aquaculture operation at Inner Bay with upwellers and facilities for holding clams and scallops and oysters of all stages of development from larval through maturity. So he specifically requested that this pier and float system not be installed between January and the end of July. Mr. Pendergast is agreeable to that stipulation. He also indicated that he would rather not have any CCA treated structural components on the project, and so this dock system is d~signed with greenheart piles and timbers and a non-CCA.deck, thatls not been decided yet as to what the exact material will be, but it could be either a composite recycled material or cedar or oak. There are a variety of alternatives for that. I wo~uld like to provide, I believe that you have already received a copy of a letter from B.D. Construction with their offices at the northwest edge of the entrance to Inner Bay. In addition, we have letters of support from Mr. John Skee, who is the adjoiner just to the west of J. Lester Parsons. We have a letters from Mr. Paul Tamberry, who occupies the land right across inner Bay. Mr. Chip Board of Trustees 32 April 21, 2004 DuPont, from Pirates Cove Marina at the entrance, and we have a reaffirmation of the Malanowskis' concerns when this dock was originally proposed stating the seasonal limitations on construction and the materials to be used and their desire to keep the turbidity to a minimum turbidity, which could be induced siltation of the water by prop action of the boat coming in. What we have done is we have located the pier and float so that the access is to the deepest water right in front of Mr. Pendergast's property. So the tendency to stir up the bottom will be minimized in this location. Mr. Pendergast has plans to acquire a 25 foot or so Mako center console boat to be used here. So this system is designed for that. The reason the float is sized the way it is is because the length of the ramp and the weight of the ramp and the bearing of the ramp on the float would tend to upset the float's stability 'and angle of inclination; so that's what the float.is:des!gned for. The floatation for the system will:.be, ,polystyrene encased in polyethylene cover black plastic flbats, highly durable and in any rate consistent witl~ all the standards that have been proposed by the Town. There are a lot of considerations required by the new ordinance, and I would like to address for the record all of those provisions very briefly here. First all, the site as I mentioned, has an environmental fringe and marsh, and we have located the pier facilities to avoid that. The navigation issues have been resolved with adjacent neighbors, and we have letters in the file to document that. Mr. Parsons' original concerns about impacting his navigation way to his dock were taken care of, and he wrote us a letter saying that he would not oppose the application. W,e have not exceeded the line of encroachment of existing piers. We have letters from adjacent property owners because of the size of the bay we contacted them all to make sure we were okay. The littoral development rights allocation within the bay has been abided by within in this application. Obviously, as long as we comply with the two adjacent neighbors and we're not exceeding the one-third of the bay diameter, we're okay in that regard. We have also abided by the 15 foot side yard back, that setback from Malanowskis on the north is 20 feet and is considerably larger, almost 100 feet from the south. The Board of Trustees 33 April 21, 2004 considerations for the environment include our passage over the slot between the wetlands along the shore. There is no observed submerged aquatic vegetation on the site during our site visit, so no adverse impact there. There's a minimal upland disturbance where the pier comes to shore and a small amount of timber embedment to make a transition on the ground onto the first deck. The open pile and timber construction will not include any CCA materials. There will be a seasonal restriction on construction in accordance with Malanowskis' request. There's no adverse impact on flow and circulation, no induced drainage problems by the structure, there's no erosion potential from it. Any water that falls on the deck will still seep through the gap in the decking so we're not obscuring any rainfall runoff onto existing ground. The structure's designed to accommodate flooding and fluctuating ,,~ater levels as required in the ordinance. And the shape of the shoreline will not be impeded by any aspect of this structure. There is no public access along the shore in Inner Bay. I know that your regulation requires a public access easement, but the terrain does not lend itself to public access, nor are there any public access points anywhere on Inner Bay. So I don't believe that a restriction f'0J, p'ublic access along the shore would really be appropriate. [f it is required by your regula,tions, I d0n~t I~elieve.~Mr. Pendergast is going to have any. objection, to .tha~t; nor d.oes he have any objection to any of the stipula'[ions, ir~ Paragraph 97-25 F, G, H, I and J. So he would be willing to accbpt the permit with those conditions in.there. The structure is designed to be standards of the industry. We use'greenhe.art piles and timber, no CCA on the decking, I mentioned the flbats and the float size. The aluminum rar~p will create.a useable slope for Mr. Pendergast even at Iow.t!~le, and one of the stipulations in your ordinance ret:liuire-~, railing only on one side, I would like to ask for a wai~er afthat because of his use of a wheelchair or some kind' of Walking assistance, a rail is really necessary for hini, on both sides. And we've got rails shown on both sides of the pier a'nd all the way down the ramp; we have a rail or~ the er~d of the float in case he loses his grip or some, thing :lille that, he won't go off the float. We have obtained permits from the Army Corps of Engineers, a statement of,comp'liance with the Department of State standards, and we have obtained an original permit from the DEC and an ~met~dment to show requirerhents of the Department of State and the OO)'ps of Engineers, and so we have two of Board of Trustees 34 April 21, 2004 those. I believe I've covered all of the requirements of your ordinance, and if there are any adverse comments, I would respectfully ask the opportunity to respond. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I was just curious because the first survey I was looking at was just straight forward, what was the purpose for -- MR. NEILSEN: Right. Originally we had a straight pier. The Corps of Engineers requested that we deviate to go over the gap between the spartina marsh at the north end of the property. Originally, the pier went straight to the hill and the Corps of Engineers requested that alignment. I have to abide by all the permits, so we modified that alignment, then went to the DEC and got the modification through the DEC. TRUSTEE KING: DEC approved the straight out approach? MR. NEILSEN: They originally approved the straight out approach, yes, then they amended their approval to cover the S-shape that I have now. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: You mentioned the railing you have at four feet? TRUSTEE KING: I should think it would be easier for a handicapped person to go straight out rather than make two turns. MR. NEILSEN: I won't argue with that but please don't get us in that Catch 22. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Seems like a waste of space to have a design like that. MR. NEILSEN: We argued it. We didn't win the argument. TRUSTEE FOSTER: It's to get away from the guy next door. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is that"S" portion over the intertidal? MR. NEILSEN: No. I've colored the spartina altema flora light green, the spartina patens darker green, some spartina alterna flora over here. We're clear of all the spartina where this pier crosses the wetland. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'm not so much concerned about the upland; I'm concerned about the intertidal area, which would be what we primarily protect because that's where there's shellfish. It appears you're covering a lot of that, which we like to see a straight -- MR. NEILSEN: You mean this section here (indicating)? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Yes. It's sitting right over the intertidal. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh That was their objection, the intertidal marsh? MR. NEILSEN: Yes. The actual, the area where we have this Board of Trustees 35 April 21, 2004 pier from the point of origin, the first straight section of the pier is over a deposit of rocks. I can't tell you anything about the history of that, it was pre-existing long before we started any application process. It was pre-existing before Mr. Pendergast owned the property. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The Army Corps of Engineers made an on-site determination? MR. NEILSEIq: Yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Is that unusual? MR. NEILSEN: No. We asked them to come out. They came to Mystic, and we brought them over there by boat and went right to the site. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh But is that usual for you to bring the Army Corps out for every application? MR. NEILSEN: Yes. We ask for the Army Corps to come out for ever,/, app!ication. They usually do not come. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh That's our understanding, they usually do not come, becauseif they hadn't come here, you would have gotten a straight dock that everyone else, including the applicant, WOLild have wanted. MR. NEll_SEN: We're trying to be thorough in our preparation. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Go ahead, Artie. MR. hlEILSEN: I'd be happyto answer any questions. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I have a letter here. I have a letter from S.~eve Malanowski, Ph.D., Fishers Island Oyster Farm, P.O. Box 402, Fishers Island, New York, I'm going to read into the record: "Thank you for the opportunity to again review the application of Mr. Joseph Pendergast to constru.ct a dock adjacent to our property on West Harbor, Fishers Island, New York. "We have no objections to the proposed dock but because we swim in the cove, fish in the cove and base our livelihood in the cove, we would like to repeat our concerns. "Our aquaculture business has been our sole source of income for the last 20 years. We operate both the shellfish hatchery and extensive nursery systems. Our hatchery cultivates microscopic larvae, the most sensitive stage of the life history and operates from January through July. "The hatchery draws approximately 1,000 gallons of cove water per day during operations. This water is filtered with a one micron bag filter. On our dock we have land-based upwellers Board of Trustees 36 April 21, 2004 which are flow-through nursery systems utilizing about 100 gallons of cove water per minute and the water attached to our dock are four large flupsy nursery systems that flow approximately 3,000 gallons per minute. Our livelihood, therefore, is intimately dependent upon the maintenance of excellent water quality in the cove. The cove is very small and activities on any of the docks or any of the properties, lawn and tree treatments, for example, in the cove affect the water quality of the entire cove. Our concerns reflect this issue of the water quality. "The construction of the dock will cause a significant amount of turbidity in the small cove, which could be a significant problem for our hatchery operations. We have larvae in the hatcherY from the beginning of February to the end of July; Impacts to our hatchery associated with dock construction would be significantly reduced, if construction occurred outside this time frame. Floating, saw dust from CCA treated lumber that ends up along the tide line in the cove could cause a ion.~ term chronic problem. Shellfish larvae are extt'emely sensitive to copper. "When we built our dock, we cut and trimmed lumber at a cytt)ng station and removed all sawdust frem~is site. Mr. Neilsen of Docko, Inc. states that there are alternative environmer~ally sound materials which would be best of ail. "Cleaners and solvents routinely used in pleasure boats are extremely toxic to young shellfish, and t~e food they eat. In fact, they are harmful to', all marine life. The bottom sediments of r~ost of this small cove are fine silts that :are maYonnaise-like in consistency. The cove is shallow and is necessary for us to tilt our outboard to get from our dock to the channel at low tide, as it will be for Mr. Pendergast. Propellers can stir up the bottom and create turbidity throughout the entire cove. This imP. act can be minimized by tilting engines and using minimum power in the cove. Without dredging, this cove is unsuitable for a large inboard vessel. "Carefully maintaining high standards of water Board of Trustees 37 April 21, 2004 quality in the cove benefits everyone who shares it. I don't believe my concerns result in restrictive suggestions associated with this project. If I can be of any help, please don't hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Steve Malanowski." MR. NEILSEN: It was because of that letter that we first received about a year and-a-half ago that we spoke with Mr. Pendergast and advised him we should use greenheart piles and timbers and special decking. And Mr. Pendergast was not averse to that. We also talked with Mr. Malanowski directly to advise him why we were going for that deepest water so there would be minimal:disturbance. Mr. Pendergast understands that his boat will be docked bow-in, rather than bow-out, which is a typical configuration. That way the motor is over the deepest part of the water. He understands that he'll have to hav~ the motor tilted in order to operate because tho water gets a little shallower before it gets deeper on the exit channel, so I believe we've taken care of everything. Mr. Pendergast is agreeable to building it after August 1st. We've worked very hard to make sure that we maintained harmony in this small bay through the construction of this pier and float. And I think we've got evidence that we' have satisfied everybody. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Any other comments? TRUSTEE t~RUPSKI: Is that construction date something that we should put in our permit; is that something that's in the DEC permit? MR. NEILSEN: It's not the other permits, but Mr. Pendergast won't object.to it being in there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Artie, you want to add that to your resolution? TRUSTEE FOSTER: You want me to read all these letters? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh No, just add the construction date to the resolution as a condition. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Is the date stated in this letter?. MR. NEILSEN: The construction needs to be -- TRUSTEE FOSTER: After July? MR. NEiLSEN: -- after July. From August and not to exceed the end of January. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Can I get a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTE~_ NING: Make a motion to close the headng. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor? ALL AYES. Board of Trustees 38 April 21, 2004 TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion to approve the request for Joseph Pendergast - is that as written? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I believe so. TRUSTEE FOSTER: With the condition that the construction not begin until August and be completed by December 31st of that same year. MR. NEILSEN: January 31st of the following year. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Okay, that will work, second? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor?. ALL AYES MR. NEILSEN: Thank you all very much. 10. J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on behalf of KATHERINE R. STUR61$ requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4' by 50' ramped fixed dock leading from the edge of the existing lawn to a 4' by 100' elevated fixed dock, 4' by 15' ramp, 8' by 15' float and an 8' by 20' float in an "L" configuration. Located: Private Road -- no number -- Fishers Island, New York. SCTM #2-1-2 MR. JUST; Good evening, Glen Just with J.M.O. Consulting, once again for the applicant. This is a project that went back to just before the moratorium. I think you checked the records, Mr. King had inspected the site on. May 17th of last year with representatives of the DEC, and I'm trying to think, maybe one bay constable was there at the time. It was originally for a 4' by 120' fixed dock, and at the time of the inspection, the depths were redone, and it was asked that the dock be reduced to 1'00 feet in length, which we have done. Do you have the correct plans because I did bring additional ones that show the 4' by 100' instead of the 4' by 120'? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh No. We have the old ones. MR. JUST: We noticed that yesterday when we were on-site, that's why I brought additional copies with me. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Same date on this but -- MR. JUST: These are the different ones here. I didn't bring the Army Corps here. Initially too, we had asked for a set of steps on the beach itself, and at the time of the inspection last May we met with the Sturgises, and they asked for that ramp at the landward end in lieu of the steps at the rocky beach there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh What about this ramp, Glenn, I don't see it on the plan? MR. JUST: Beg your pardon? Board of Trustees 39 April 21, 2004 TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I don't see the ramp on the plans. MR. JUST: It's at the very end. It's all completely on the uplands. There's no vegetated on the tidal wetlands, intertidal marsh or high marsh on the property. It's a Long Island Sound beach. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Because I was looking at the cross-section and it starts at eight feet, and I was wondering how is there beach access issue here; should we have steps coming off to the beach on either side? MR. JUST: We could incorporate them into the plan. I don't think that's an issue on Fishers to be honest, such large properties. Again, we could incorporate that. TRUSTEE FOSTER: They show that as beach but it's all rocks. MR. JUST: It's boulders. TRUSTEE FOSTER: It's indicated beach but it really wasn't a beach. I couldn't imagine anybody walking along there. MR. JUST: It would be pretty difficult. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I suppose at that kind of elevation you can walk under it at eight feet. No, you can't because high water goes up. to it. TRUSTEE FOSTER: What's the tide rise and fall over there? TRUSTEE KING: Not much. Two and-a-half feet, three feet. MR. JUST: Probably same as Mattituck. TRUSTEE KING: Less than three feet, Mattituck's about five and-a-half on the average. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Three and-a-half now. TRUSTEE FORSTER: What's the Board's position on the eight foot wide floats; is that an issue? TRUSTEE KING: We've consistently allowed a wide float in this area, Fishers Island Sound, because of the openness of the water. TRUSTEE FOSTER: More stability? TRUSTEE KING: Yes, we've made this exception particularly for Fishers Island historically. TRUSTEE FOSTER: It's definitely open water. MR. JUST: That was the whole reason. TRUSTEE KING: It was an issue during the hearings too. Everyone from Fishers Island -- well, they actually wanted their own plan. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I don't have a problem with it as long as everYbody else doesn't. I understand the issue. TRUSTEE KING: Seems to be a necessary evil over there. TRUSTEE FOSTER: The only concern here from the previous inspection basically was to shorten the dock a little bit Board of Trustees 40 April 21, 2004 and they took 20 feet off it, so any other concerns? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm still unclear as to where the ramp ends and the dock starts and should we have beach access or not? MR. JUST: It's a manicured lawn that drops down from elevations in the teens, to sharp, big, gravely rocks the size of bowling balls, the smallest one, down to mean high water, and they just want to span that area from the lawn where it drops off across the rocks down to the landward end of the dock. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You want to do stairs or not? TRUSTEE KING: I can't imagine anyone walking the beach there. TRUSTEE FOSTER: No, it's huge rocks. TRUSTEE KING: I don't think it's an issue at all. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Then let's move on. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Katherine Sturgises as written with the dock s'hown 20' shorter than its original request to 100 feet. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TF~USTEE FOSTER: All in favor?. ALL AYES TRUSTEE FOSTER: So carried. 11. J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on behalf of MARC RUBENSTI~IN requests a Wetland Permit to construct an addition, deck and terrace onto an existing single-family dwelling anel to construct an addition and porch onto an existing cottage. Located: Madeline Avenue, Fishers Island. SCTM #6-7-7. MR. JUST: Once again, Glenn Just on behalf of the applicant. Just a little history on this one. I believe it was back in August, when Mr. King and myself and Chuck Hamilton from the DEC went out to this site and that was the day, I think the first six job sites we stopped on it was a violation. By the time we got to this site I wanted to go back in the car and go home. But we were there and we inspected the site. It consists of a small existing one and-a-half story single family dwelling and two studios that are offset probably 50 feet away. And what originally they wanted to do was to put a small porch and addition connecting the two studios, and then to put a proposed addition and a terrace off the existing dwelling. That's the plans you have now, but in the last week or two we've Board of Trustees 4l April 21, 2004 re-met with the DEC and the project has been changed quite a bit. Unfortunately, I don't have the plans with me but I thought I'd take the time, a minute or two to discuss them. The applicant has agreed -- this is the original post-terrace, this is the house here. He's agreed not to extend beyond the line of the existing dwelling. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Is this the house? MR. JUST: That's it. There's an existing leaching pool for the septic system about 50 feet away from the fresh water wetlands line. The applicant has agreed to abandon that cesspool, an existing cesspool, an existing septic tank and relocate them to a point of 95 feet landward of fresh water wetland boundary again. So we'll make the proposed terrace and to agree that there's not going to be any heat, these are shacks, I mean, that's what they come down to. They're unheated, there's summer electricity, there is a bathroom in the one studio that's connected to this one system, they have agreed to not upgrade the building where they would be putting in heat or insulating the building. I guess people stay in over the summer and again relocating the septic system up here. Chandler Palmer came in to get the new plans in time. I j.ust wanted to take the chance to discuss and we can come.back next month. We could wait. It's up to you folks you if you w, ant to look at the plans. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Everyone else seems to be familiar with the site. I'd have no problem to approving it subject to getting everything, then if there's some problem we won't stamp the plans~'we'll come back again. MR. JUST: That,s fine ~Nith me. TRUSTEE KING: Was there a violation before, mowing or semething, Glenn? MR. JUST: No. They had originally mowed right down to that freshwater wetlands historically. These people are new owners maybe seven or eight years. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I was curious. MR. JUST: If the Board wants to incorporate a nondisturbance buffer, again, I don't know if we could get 50 feet. 1 don't think there's enough room there, but we could work something out on the plans. TRUSTEE FOST, ER: There's no place to put that. MR. JUST: It's so tight, the house is right there. TRUSTEE FoST, ER: I don't think you could, it slopes right off. MR. JUST: You could probably get 10 or 15 feet at the most there. Board of Trustees 42 April 21, 2004 TRUSTEE FOSTER: I don't think you could do anything with it anyway. MR. JUST: No, just don't mow is what I'rn saying, that one stretch. TRUSTEE FOSTER: You'd never know it was wetlands when they mowed it, it was dry. It just looked like weeds. It's wet right now. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Someone want to make a motion or do you want to table it? TRUSTEE FOSTER: I think we can approve it subject to a new plan. Don't you? I'll make a motion to close the hearing, TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Make a motion to approve the application of Mark Rubenstein as requested, subject to the issuance of a new plan showing the present changes. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor?. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE FOSTER: So moved. 12. J.M.O. Environmental Consulting Services on behalf of W.L. LYONS BROWN III requests a Wetland Permit to construct a sunroom (14' by 14'), a screened porch (13' by 14') and an open deck (10' by 16') onto an existing single-family dwelling. Located: Hedge Street, Fishers Island. SCTM #10-7-12 MR. JUST: Once again, Glenn Just on behalf of the applicants. Ithink this is pretty straightforward application. The property is bulkheaded and a concrete seawall, no vegetative wetlands on site. I think Mr. Foster was the only Trustee that was on the site. This is one that came in after your last tdp. This is right next to Tom Dougherty's house on the back part of the harbor there. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Wasn't this next to the house that burned? MR. JUST: No, tkiat was Mr. Sturgis', the dock that we did previously. This is the one on the inner harbor that had the big concrete ~eawall. We walked around the left side of the house, big.privet ledges when we went in. Wood pile on the left-hand side when you walked in. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Okay. You're not on here for the one with the swimming pool high up on the bluff? MR. JUST: No, I'm going to submit next -- TRUSTEE FOSTER: You're not going to submit that? MR. JUST: I will next month. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Any comments? No, okay. TRUSTEE KING: I don't see any huge impact on this. Board of Trustees 43 April 21, 2004 TRUSTEE FOSTER: No, it's cut and dried actually. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Move on. MR. JUST: It's been reduced in size at the request of the ZBA just recently as well. TRUSTEE FOSTER: That's been reflected here? MR. JUST: Yes. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Any further comments? Okay, there being no further comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion to approve the request for W.L. Lyons Brown, III for a Wetland Permit, to construct sunroom 14' by 14', screened room 13' by 14', open deck 10' by 16', onto existing family dwelling on Hedge Street Fishers Island. Second? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor?. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE FOSTER: So carried. 13. Twomey, Latham, Shea and Kelley on behalf of JOHN F. BETSCH requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to construct a two-story single-family dwelling with a two-car garage in place of the existing one-story, two-car garage and dwelling, and to be built on wood pilings. Located: 2325 North Sea Drive, Southold. SCTM #54-4-24 TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the application? MR. FINNIGAN: Good evening, my name is Martin Finnigan, Mr. Krupski, Members of the Board, I'm here on behalf of John Betsch, who is seeking a Coastal Erosion Management Permit pursuant to Sections 37-11 and 12 of Southold Town Code to reconstruct a single-family dwelling on his property, as you know, located at 2325 North Sea Drive. The existing structure is a single-family home with ground coverage of approximately 1,782 square feet. The property lies along the Long !sland Sound and is flanked to the east by a beach parking lot and to the west by a home. At the outset, I'd note that the proposed construction is to take place in excess of 100 feet from any freshwater wetland and as such a wetlands permit is not required, i think as the Board is aware, at the last hearing a letter of non-jurisdiction was submitted for the record here dated March 4, 2004 -- actually, it wasn't at the last hearing. I think we submitted that in writing to the Board. I'd also just I:ike to note that the proposed Board of Trustees 44 April 21, 2004 construction is entirely compliant with the dimensional provisions in the Southold Town Zoning Code, it also meets all FEMA requirements. Basically we're here because the applicants would like to build, reconstruct what is now a fairly basic home into a home that is, quite frankly, more in keeping with all the other homes that neighbor their property. The proposed construction is nothing extraordinary. There's yet another three bedroom, two bathroom home with a garage and a deck. The square footage will increase to approximately 2,900 square feet. The proposed construction is entirely keeping with the character of the homes that are currently either built or being built along North Sea Drive, and I have photographs which I can share with the Board. I believe some of them have already been presented to you in the record, but I would show them to you as we proceed here. Basically we're here because of the existence of a coastal erosion hazard line on North Sea Drive. I think the Board is aware that the line actually goes right down in sort of a diagonal fashion, but it goes right along the road. The Betchesr property being right here to the east right next to the beach parking lot. At the last hearing, there was a discussion, and I think Mr. Krup.ski actually read into the record a letter from a Robert McOonough from the DEC which purported to respond to Mr. Krupsl~i~s inquiry about why this line was where it was, and what is exactly the natural protective feature which the'.line was drawn to protect. You may recall that Mr. McDono~gh's response was somewhat inconclusive and he wasn't really able to identify exactly why the line is where it currently is placed, but seemed to indicate that if there was eventually an appeal some day of your decision, that maybe they could come out and look at it and try to figure out why; it is where it is. I bring this up just to suggest that i'r doleS~p!tis.e, em equitable that the Betches should be required to.!itigate the ocat on of this line when there doesn't seem to be any reason why it is where it is. It's obviously a C~ple hundred feet from the water and by aerial view there's no conclusive explanation as to its location. I'd also like to address some of the comments that Mr. McDonough made in his letter with regard to your discretion here tonight and your jurisdiction to consider this application. 'Mr. McDonough suggests that there's an absolute prohibition to your issuance of a permit because Board of Trustees 45 April 21, 2004 the proposed construction is greater than 25 percent of the existing structure, and I submit to you that there is no such mandate in the Town Code in Chapter 37, which mandates that this Board must deny an application for a permit to construct a home that is greater than 25 percent of the existing structure. Section 37-11 empowers the Board to issue permits for regulated activity, which includes the construction of a major addition, a major addition is defined as the construction or reconstruction that results in a 25 percent or greater increase in ground coverage. So I submit to you that there is jurisdiction, you do have the authority to administer this code, and if we can meet the criteria of Section 3.7-12, I think that you have the ability to issue a permit, notwithstanding what Mr. McDonough has stated in his I'etter. Particularly in light of the fact that there's been no natural protective feature identified by Mr. McDonough. I would like to briefly address those 37-12 criteria for you and establish to you why I believe that the issuance of a Coastal Erosion Permit is warranted here. I'm sure you're f~miliar with them, but obviously the first criteria is that the proposed construction is reasonable and necessary. Obviously, reasonableness, I would suggest to you is define¢l by the surrounding area and what are we comparing this to, what are we trying to do. We have a parking lot on one side; {he other side of this property is the housethat in 1997 a permit was issued by this Board to reconstruct a house that increased ground coverage we approximate, by~app'roximately 55 to 57 percent. The Be~c~es are not looking to construct a monstrous house here. They're looking to construct a house that is entirely i~ keeping with the character of numerous homes ale. n.~!tt~e.roJad, and if I could I'd like to hand up some phr~togi'al~hs of some of the other homes that are along the road, sorlie being'Constructed some are already constructed. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm sorry, could you clarify what you just said earlier, the Board approved an application on this site for thf~ hguse? MR. FINNIGAN: No, the next door neighbor, the Pearlstein property whiCh is directly next door. The home itself, the proposed construction is, as I said, compliant with FEMA requirements and therefore, it will be constructed on pilings, and as I again stated earlier, it is in compliance with all other dimensional requirements in the Town Code. So in essence, were you to Board of Trustees 46 April 21, 2004 issue a permit, the Betches could go tomorrow and get a building permit for this property. There's no other impediment other than the placement of this line along North Sea Drive. So I would suggest to you that if we look at all those factors together that the proposed construction is, in fact, reasonable and completely in character with what's going on in the neighborhood there, and, in fact, it is an aesthetically pleasing design that will be not unlike the other homes that you're looking at in those photographs. I do have some schematic drawings if the Board is interested in reviewing them. The next criteria is whether or not the regulated activity is likely to cause a measurable increase in erosion at the proposed sites. There's absolutely no indication that the construction of this home, which is essentially in the exact area where the existing home is, which is well over 100 feet from the wetland line, could in any way contribute to ad~titional erosion. We've been unable to determine how that could occur. Furthermore, the third factor being, will it minimize effects on natural protective features. Again, not knowing exactly what the protective feature is here, I can certainly assure you there will be no impact on a bl~ff, a dune, whatever it may be. It is construction, confined to an area where there is existing construction. The house is going to be raised, actually, put on pilings and will, in fact, decrease the intrusion to the ground cover that currently exists. Essentia!ly, I'd suggest to you that reviewing the criteria of 37-12 and reviewing what is proposed here, I believe that lhe Bet~;hes' application meets that criteria. I believe that you are empowered by the code to issue this permit based on those criteria. Particularly, when you look at the big. picture here and consider that there's no legitimate reason for why the line is here. To litigate that, to h,ave it reevaluated or moved is a monumental undertaki,ng.end the next door neighbors were able to construbt their hous'e, several other homes along here, even though the line goes diagonally, and they may be in a different standing that the Betches are with regard to this line, this construction has gone forward, so I believe it's in conformity with what's going on and we would respectfully request that you issue the permit pursuant to Section 37-12. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Thank you. Before the Board comments, are there any other comments on this? Does the Board any have Board of Trustees 47 April 21, 2004 any comments? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I have a comment. You had mentioned that the proposed building does not take over anymore of the site, you're saying it's pretty much within the footprint? MR. FINNIGAN: It will increase the footprint, that's why I'm saying it's a major addition. It is greater than 25 percent. The approximate increase is approximately 50, probably about 55 to 57 percent. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: More. MR. FINNIGAN: More. It's an increase in square footage from the existing ground coverage of a little over 1,000 square feet, 1,100 feet. MR. JOHNSTON: Al, are the other houses on the seaward side of the coastal erosion line that you approved? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Lot of them are. MR. JOHNSTON: The one he makes reference to? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Could we see that aerial map that has the coastal erosion on it?. MR. FINIqlGAN: This one is the one I referred to in '97. There was some different circumstances with these applications .because of, obviously, the placement of the line and ~vhat Structures. TRUSTEE DICKEFiSON: This is Pearlstein, the one that's right next door that's also.seaward? MR. FI:NNIGAI}I: Sea.ward of the line, yes. TRUSTEE KR.DPSEq: I think that what's at issue here and the letter, we got from I~¢bert McDonough that's been referenced, who is the env i'onmer)ta program specialist of the Coastal Erosion Manag;,em~.rlt Unit, and this comes out of the code, a variance, could,l>e~. ~s'~ued_ for reconstruction provided that the following criteria are met. And we have to decide is it reasonab..e.an0 prudent or is there an alternative site. MR. FINNI .GAN: C~in I comment on that? That's the criteria for a variance. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Correct. MR. FINNIGAN: We're seeking a permit. That criteria is the critei'ia that you would have to establish to the Town Board if.we,.did not get-- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But the Town Board -- TRUSTEE FOSTER: Don't you need a variance for relief from the coastal erosion line? TRUSTEE KRUPS'K): The Town Board is the Appeals Board. MR. FINNJGP~N: For the variance. TRUSTEE KR:UPSKh Not for the variance, they're Appeals Board. MR. FIN'NIGAN: From the denial of the permit. If you deny Board of Trustees 48 April 21, 2004 a permit based on the criteria, I would have to appeal to the Town Board, and that's the variance criteria I would have to establish for the Town Board. TRUSTEE FOSTER: What would be the reason that we would want to deny it, just the coastal erosion line? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Because of the coastal erosion as stated in the letter or we could find it in the code says the reconstruction or an increase of 25 percent or greater in ground coverage is prohibited and would require a variance. So it's up to us to say is the issuance of a permit, one, is it reasonable and necessary. MR. JOHNSTON: Both, reasonable and necessary. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So that's how we have to look at this, and I'm inclined to. have it staked and look at it again, instead of just trying to either make a determination tonight or kick it into the Town Board. What's the square footage of the house:n'ext door'?. MR. FINNIGAN: The exact square footage, are you struggling with the issue of raecessary? Necessary, obviously, is a relative term. Thins is what they've decided, they're moving out here to live permanent. It's a summer home now. TRUSTEE'KRUPSKI: I don't think we want to lawyer it up. I'd rather see it staked in the field and we can take a look at it in our May inspection. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Wasn't it staked out? MR. I=IN.N]GAN: 19o you have a copy of the survey? TRUSTEE KR'.UPS'KI: No. We want it staked in the field so we can see it staked i'~ the field, May 12th. We'll be happy to meet either you or,the applicant or both on-site and you could also giv~ us'{he square footage of the Pearlstein house. MR. FINNIGAN: I don't have that with me this evening, but we'll try to determine that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If there's no other comments, I make a motion to.table the application. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh All in favor? ALL AYES. MR. FI:NNIGAN: Thank you very much. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI; Thank you. 14 has been postponed. Ken, I think this is one of yours, 157 15. John Bertani Builder, Inc. on behalf of W. BRUCE BOLLMAN requests a Wetland Permit to demolish the existing dwelling and construct new two-story dwelling on the same footprint, and construct a first floor and second-story Board of Trustees 49 April 21, 2004 addition to the new dwelling. Located: 1755 Truman's Path, East Marion. SCTM #31-13-03 MR. BOLLMAN: My name is Bruce Bollman. I'm here for any questions. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: The only question I had was about all the structure from the beach landward? MR. BOLLMAN: I'm sorry? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All the structure, the bulkheading and the clearing, was that existing? MR. BOLLMAN: That's been there for years. My father built the house in '45. So we have had it for a long time. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Okay. One other comment I have is you need to put the drywells on the survey. MR. BOLLMAN: Okay, I'll make sure he puts them on. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Any other comments, Board? Fairly straightforward. If not, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor?. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland Permit on behalf of Bruce Bollman with the stipulation that there be .dry wells placed on the survey. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor?. ALL AYES. 16. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of DIANA J. FISCHER requests a Wetland Permit to construct a two-story, one-family dwelling with attached porches and carport; install a sanitary system, drywells, pervious driveway, and public water service; and establish a 75' wide non-disturbance/non-fertilization buffer adjacent to the freshwater wetland boundary. Located: 385 North Lane, East Marion. SCTM #31-7-10. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone who would like to comment on this application? MR. HERMANN: Rob Hermann of En-Consultants on behalf of the applicant, Diana Fischer. I hope the Board would attribute a little bit of ceremony to this application. It was the first officially booted application last January when a moratorium was passed about an hour before you intended to review the application. Miss Fischer owns a property along Marion Lake that is almost two and.a-half acres in size, and has proposed a development of that lot that would consume little more than two pement of that area, less than 2,600 square feet. It's a proposed two-story cottage essentially with a couple Board of Trustees 50 April 21, 2004 screened porches to overlook the lake, with a pervious driveway and carport and there are no accessory structures proposed. There's a 75 foot nonfertilization/nondisturbance buffer that was imposed by the New York State DEC and covenanted. It doesn't get much better than this for the Board I don't think, and we would ask respectively for your approval. 'TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Thank you. Is there any other comments? I've looked at this, have you? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We've all looked at it. Move it along. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: If no other comments, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland Permit on,behalf of Diana Fischer. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Any conditions? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Hay bales during construction. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Dry wells? MR. HERMANN.: They're all on there. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second? TRUSTEE DICKERSQN: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor?. ALL AYES. MR. HERMANN: Thank you. 17. En-Consultants, Inc., on behalf of EMILIA AND ILYA KABAKOV requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace (in-kind and in-place) approximately 163 linear feet of existing timber bulkhead and backfill with approximately 25 cubic yards of clean fill to be trucked in from an upland source. For purposes of bulkhead reconstruction, remove and replace 11' by 26' deck and 4' by 7' steps. Remove and replace (in-kind and in-place) existing 45', 61' and 60' timber groins with Iow-profile, vinyl groins. Located: 1700 Park Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM #123-8-5 MR. HERMANN: Rob Hermann of En-Consultants on behalf of the applicants. If the Board has any questions, I can answer them, otherwise it's a fairly typical application for this area, it's part of a stabilized shore front with bulkheading and groins, and we're looking to replace the groins with Iow profile vinyl groins trying to be consistent with what the Board's policy typically is with groin replacement and the bulkhead is also to be replaced that's it. TRUSTEE KING: I was out there, Rob, at Iow tide looking at it. I'd like to shorten the groins up. The seaward ends Board of Trustees 51 April 21, 2004 are not really functioning at all. I measured it out, and the westerly groin 40', the center groin make 50 and the one to the east make 50. It's a nice stable beach, I don't see any need for those -- MR. HERMANN: Could you repeat the numbers? TRUSTEE KING: 40 to the west, 50 in the middle and 50 on the east end, that's what I measured out to where there were actually conforming. MR. HERMANN: You didn't get a chance to look at this with anyone from DEC, did you? TRUSTEE KING: Not yet. MR. HERMANN: I don't think that's a problem. I mean, I have on the plan the Iow water lines marked out and that would be fairly consistent with the measurements I took. I would say that we could agree to it, but just leave open the possibility if there's some variation with DEC's determination, if maybe I have to come back to see you, but for the interest of efficiency, I mean, I don't largely disagree with you. TRUSTEE KING: Okay. And I'd like to see the remnants out there removed where the new one's built. And the bulkheads are they going to be vinyl? MR. HERMAN,: Actually, I don't think this is proposed to be. It's not in, the water, Jim, it's actually up -- it should say right here. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh What would be the reservation? MR. HERMANhI: Yeah, it is proposed just to be replaced with CCA timber. That's just what the specifications that the contractor discUSsed with the owner. I know that normally if'it's regularly i~undated with high tide, the Board likes to see it switched to vinyl. TRUSTEE KING: I was curious because they're doing the vinyl groins, they're going to be working with vinyl here. I don't know. I don't think it's going to have a real big impact. Is'that going to be all one height, the bulkhead now? There's a variance in the height drops down, picks up, drops down. MR. HERMANN: On Sheet 1, Jim, I have the Number 6, height of all new bulkheading above beach grade not to exceed existing five and-a-half feet, which is the maximum that's there now. I mean, he may come a little lower than that, but he won't come any higher than what's there now. TRUSTEE' KING: Other than that it's pretty straightforward. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Make a motion. TRUSTEE KING: Make a motion to close the hearing, any other comments? If not, I'll make a motion to close the Board of Trustees 52 April 21, 2004 hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KING: Now I'll make a motion to approve with change in length of the groins. MS. STANDISH: What are those new lengths? TRUSTEE KING: Westerly groin is 40 feet, center groin 50 feet and groin to the east is 50. Can we get a new set of plans showing that, Rob? MR. HERMANN: Yes, I would, definitely. I have to. TRUSTEE KING: Do I have a second? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. ALL AYES 18. David Corwin on behalf of JAMES E. GIBBONS requests a Wetland Permit to extend the existing dock 8' seaward by installing a new 6' by 8' section and relocating the existing float and ramp 8' seaward. Located: 505 Lighthouse Lane in Southold. SCTM #70-6-29.1 TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Anyone like to speak in favor of the application? MR. CORWIN: David Corwin, I don't have any comments, but if you have any questions, I11 try to answer them. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI.: Any other comments on this application? Normally I'd be against any additional dock-like in the creek, however, upon, site inspection it seems to me that it was a pretty reasonable -- because of the sand accretion in that location, a pretty reasonable request, and not an impossible intrusive one. So if there's no other comment, Ill make a motion to .6lose the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: S~cond. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI; All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE K;RUPSKJ: Make a motion to approve the application. TRUSTEE KI'NG: Second TRUSTEE K~RUPSKh All in favor? ALL AYES 19. David Corwin on behalf of DAVID EDELSTEIN AND LIBBY GOLDSTEIN requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4' by 16' ramp, 4' by 46' catwalk, 4' by 12' access stairs, and one (1) mooring pile. Located: 4145 Wells Road, Peconic. SCTM #86-2-12.6 TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the application? MR. CORWIN: David Corwin, I don't have any comments, but if you have any questions, I'll try to answer them. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Any other comment? Board of Trustees 53 April 21, 2004 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: You wanted the pole 40 feet out? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh What's that? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We wanted to the pole 40 feet out. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh What is it now? MR. CORWlN: I have 40 feet on the drawing I believe. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Does anyone have any issues with this? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: No. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any way we could -- and I feel like I have to ask it -- is there any way they could reduce that catwalk to 3' or are they set on 4'? MR. CORWlN: Say that again. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any way they could reduce the catwalk to 3', would they consider that? MR. CORWlN: I'd have to ask the owner. The DEC has approved it and the Corps of Engineers has approved it at4'. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I'm inclined to approve it, I just want to know how intensive the use is. A lot of people are satisfied with 3 feet because it's a seasonal use. If you could ask them that, we would entertain that, reducing the width. MR. CORWlN: All right. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Any other comment? I have a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve the application. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor?. ALL AYES 20. David Corwin on behalf of NORA TUTHILL GLUECK-TRUSTEE FOR KATHARINE TUTHILL ESTATE requests a Wetland Permit to maintenance dredge approximately 300 cubic yards of sand, place sand in front of Old Cove Club bulkhead and end of Old Harbor Road as beach nourishment, and install four 6' by 20' floats. Located: Old Cove Yacht Club, New Suffolk. SCTM #117-5-14.1 and 14.2 MR. LYNCH: Hi, I'm Dion Lynch, and I'm here as an officer for the Old Cove Yacht Club, which is a tenant and has been a tenant on the property for 50, 60 some-odd years. I've been going Jn and out of School House Creek for 30 some-odd years, and we're pretty much just trying to put things back the way they were. We've let them go a little too long I think, and getting that sand back on the beach is pretty key Board of Trustees 54 April 21, 2004 to our kids' sailing program and getting the floats, of course, for our fleet TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Thank you. Anybody else like to comment on this application? MR. SCHULTHEIS: My name is Jerry Schultheis, I live on School House Creek, and I'd like to make quite a few comments. I think the new Chapter 97 bears directly on this particular project. First of all, I'd like to bring up the fact that I don't believe the proper notification was made to even have this public hearing right now. If you read Chapter 58, Section 58-1 ,. Sec[ion B-2 of the Town Code, it says basically that all abutting property owners need to be notified of.this hearing. This work is being held on Tax Map Parcel Number 50, which is on the assessment role. There's a copy of the property record card included that shows it's ion the assessment role. Clearly not all of the abutting parcels have been notified. In specific, there are two parcels, F~arcel 16 and 48.1, which have not been notified. So in essence by Town Code, the proper notification has not been made and this hearing really can't be held. MR. JOHNSTON: Can we hold it for a second? TRUSTEE[ KRUPSKh We'll verify that, and if you're correct then you're correct. Brownell, can you take a look at the file? MR. JOHNSTON: Sure. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: 14.2, is that the correct tax map? M,R. SCHULTHEIS: The parcel Tax Map Number 50 is where the work is being done. M,R. JOHNSTON: Work is being done on 14.27 MR. SCHULTHEIS: The work is actually shown on Parcel 50 on their application. I think, I'm not sure what number they refer to it, but I believe it might be Number 9. It's actually the finger of School House Creek. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: They show 14.1 and 14.2 as parcel location. I believe you're right. I believe you're right, it is 50 also, where the floats will be going. MR. SCHULTHEIS: Here's a copy of the submission that was made. This shows the site of the dredging and the site of the dock and it's clearly in the creek which they call Parcel 9, and it refers to it as Tax Parcel Number 50 clearly in the application. MR. JOHNSTON: And it says 50 on our tax map, is that where you think you're going to be going? MR. LYNCH: 9 or 50 whichever. Board of Trustees 55 April 2 l, 2004 MR. JOHNSTON: 13, 14.1, I don't think 15, but the other one there, I can't see the number, 14.2, probably not 15, but -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Why not 157 MR. JOHNSTON: I don't think it goes down there; does it? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, 15. MR. SCHULTHEIS: The spoils are actually being placed next to Lot 15. MR. JOHNSTON: Okay. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is 15 noticed? MR. SCHULTHEIS: 15 was noticed. MR. JOHNSTON: Bottom line we table it. Send them out certified. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Make a motion due to lack of notification that we table this for one month until neighbors are notified. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor?. ALL AYES. MR. CORWIN: I'm not following what lots you're saying aren't notified. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh What was discovered is the work was being done on parcel, it's either 50 or 9, which would be described as the dredge canal and that all the neighbors adjacent to that parcel -- because it's not Town owned underwater land, it's actually a privately owned parcel -- had not been notified. MR. CORWlN: So you're saying neighbors abutting Parcel 9? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Correct. All neighbors abutting Parcel 9 should be notified. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Are you sure it's only 9? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We are sure it's Parcel 9, correct, that's where the work is going to be conducted. MR. JOHNSTON: It's the ones abutting that, not just 9 but the ones abutting that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh That's right. TRUSTEE FOSTER: What parcels are they? Give them the numbers, so we can -- TRUST!dE KRUPSKI: Can you read offthe numbers, Ken, the ones tha~t need to be noticed. TRUSTP, E POLIWODA: The parcels abutting this where the operations will be is Parcel Number 15, Parcel 13, Parcel 16, Parcel 48.1, Parcel 21.1, Parcels 46.3, 46.4, all the way up, Iparce130, Parcel 9.1, Parcel 49.1, and there's one at the head of the creek there, there's no number, adjacent to Number 13. MR. CORWlN: Okay, thank you. AUDIENCE MEMBER: If you want to know who those parties are, Board of Trustees 56 April 21, 2004 I can tell you. MR. JOHNSTON: Tell him. Dave, the authority for that is obviously Chapter 58, the public notice requirements for public meeting. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh So we'll all meet again next month. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: As well as Number44. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Did you make a motion to table this? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Ken did. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES. 21. Catherine Mesiano, Inc. on behalf of GRACE KEHLE requests a Wetland Permit to construct a Iow-profile 3' by 95' fixed timber dock, minimum 2.5' above grade, with 3' by 8' steps to grade. Located: 450 Strohson Road, Cutchogue. SCTM #103-10-20 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here who would like to speak for this application? MS. MESIANO: Katherine Mesiano on behalf of Grace Kehle. I understand frem speaking with Lauren that you had some issues when you visited the site, so I'd be glad to address any of your questions. And also I'd like to add that this is a matter that we had been addressing prior to the implementation of your moratorium. There was some discussion with the DEC we were never able to resolve the issue with the DEC, so we started the process all over again. We're starting with you again then we'll go back at it with the DEC. They wouldn't undertake the application while your moratorium was in effect. TRUSTEE DICKE'RSON: We went out and were concerned about the extent of the mars,h area that was being covered and wondered if they would consider going centrally right out from the house to that open area? MS. MESIANO: Yes. They would actually prefer to have the dock there. TRUSTEE KING: Wasn't that the first time we were going to do it there, and then we wanted to do it there? MS. MESIANO: The DEC -- what had actually occurred was that the DEC wanted them to end the dock in that central location landward, more landward than was practical so that any kayak, rew boat, whatever you might be getting back into, you'd be in the muck if you stepped into a boat, you'd be driving it into muck, and it wouldn't even float at that time. And the DEC was just holding firm on that. So we were trying to come up with something. They're not even Board of Trustees 57 April 21, 2004 asking for a float, there's not enough water for it. They would love to have a float, but it won't so it would be redundant to ask, but we at least want to be able to have steps down to grade and not be trotting through the muck. TRUSTEE KING: To me that was the logical place to put that. You would be disturbing less marsh and as a matter of fact, there's still some old poles that there was something there at one time. MS. MESIANO: That's where we want to be. TRUSTEE KING: That's where I'd like to see it. TRUSTEE FOSTER: We all felt the same on that one. MS. MESIANO: Yes, except the DEC. So since the time has passed, your moratorium is over, we're readdressing the whole situation. I really think that that is the logical location for it, and from a practical perspective, it makes perfect sense. Least amount of impact, but we want to be able to be out far enough so as not to be slogging through the muck. Now, I have some of my old sketches and one of the sketches that we had entertained in that location, our fixed dock extended approximately 14 feet beyond the edge of the bog, that restricted -- that included the steps by the way -- that restricts the overall length of the structure to less than a third of the distance of the width of that channel, and it puts them in about 1.4 feet of water. That ideally is what we'd like to be able to do. TRUSTEE FOSTER: That's basically right back where we were when we started. Now you're going to have to go all through that with the DEC again, and' they're going to deny it? MS. MESIANO: I hope not. We never came away with a permit from your Board, and like I say, we're back in the beginning, and I'd I~e some direction from you. That's where you'd like to see it, that's where we'd like to be. TRUSTEE FOSTER: That's where it should be. MS. MESIANO: That's where it should be, that's where it was previously. It's the lea~t amount of disturbance, least amount of coverage of the wetlands area and most particularly, we're concerned with that depth of water that we can get into. We don't'want to step off the end of the dock into marsh. The DEC was proposing that we end the dock well into that little notched-out channel, and, Ken, I think when we were there, gou had commented on how muddy it was and how active the shellfish population was there. There's quite a bit of' mussels and So on. It didn't make sense at that point to stop at that poi,nt and start trotting through the water at that point. Board of Trustees 58 April 21, 2004 I have an old plan I can get new copies of it, but I can give you this copy if you like, it illustrates what we're talking about, who's pointing here. Primarily, are you in agreement with the overall length so we can achieve a little bit of depth? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The last one was 13 and it was a width of 40 and this is 14 -- MS. MESIANO: 14 at 45. TRUSTEE KING: You say that includes the stairs? MS. MESIANO: Yes. If you look at that you see the steps are included at the end. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: DEC probably doesn't want to cover the water. TRUSTEE KING: It can be right on the edge, it doesn't have to be in the center of it. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'd put it right back where we put it the first time and send her on her way. TRUSTEE KING: That's what we're looking about. TRUSTEE KING: Anybody else want to say anything? TRUSTEE FOSTER: No. TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments on this application? I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Make a motion to approve the application with the condition of new plans, on the condition that new plans be-- TRUSTEE KING: If you can, Cathy, just show that west edge of the dock in line with the edge of the marsh, over that little gutter, so it's not centered in the gutter, but you just miss the marsh, almost in line with the poles, where the old poles are. MS. MESIANO: The westerly edge of the dock should be consisten'~ with the westerly edge of the notch? TRUSTEE KING: Right. MS. MESIANO: And we're at 3' in width and 2 and-a-half feet above grade? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'd like to make that at two and-a-half feet above grade not minimum. It says minimum. MS. MESIANO: Okay, at two and-a-half feet, okay. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Stay within 115 feet. TRUSTEE KING: This was in a different location. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Okay. MS. MESIANO: Rather than have a discrepancy on the overall Board of Trustees 59 April 21, 2004 length of the dock, limit the length of the dock so that it does not exceed the 14 feet past the edge of the bog since we have identified the creek at 45 feet. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: You want it not to exceed 14 foot into the channel? MS. MESIANO: Not to exceed an overall length of 14 feet into the channel. TRUSTEE KING: Not to exceed over the edge of the marsh, not to exceed 14 feet. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Not to exceed 14 feet seaward of the marsh. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Do you have any idea how far the neighbor extends out beyond the bog? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Not much. MS. MESIANO: I don't have the neighbor to the northeast, they have a very substantial dock. And the other dock doesn't extend far at all. I think they have more water there though, Ken. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: You might be right. MS. MESIANO: There's a channel, but we're not lucky enough to hit any deep water where we are. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Do I have a second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor?. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm recusing myself, for the record. 22. Catherine Mesiano, Inc. on behalf of EVAN AKSELRAD requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 30' by 62' two-story single-family dwelling and attached garage, approximately 504 square feet, deck, pervious driveway, and on-site sewage disposal system. Located: 1355 Shore Drive, Greenport. SCTM #47-2-27 TRUSTEE KING: Anyone care to comment on this application? MS. MESIANO: Catherine Mesiano on behalf of the applicant. I think the application is pretty straightforward. We're pushing the house as far from the bulkhead as we can get it and still allow room for the septic system, that's basically what dictates the placement of everything else, is maintaining our setback for the septic, then maintaining the appropriate setbacks from the septic to the house. If you have any questions I'd be glad to address them. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh No comments on this. You want to close the hearing? TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments? I'll make a motion to close the hearing. Board of Trustees 60 April 21, 2004 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor?. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KING: I just need to show the dry wells for roof runoff. MS. MESlANO: Okay. TRUSTEE KING: Anybody else? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: No. TRUSTEE KING: Make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. MS. MESlANO: Thank you very much. 23. Patricia Moore on behalf of THOMAS LUNIEWSKI requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling. Located: 470 John's Road, Mattituck. SCTM #122-3-25.2 TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Would anyone like to speak in favor of the application? MS. MOORE: This is one of the very last ones before the moratorium was adopted. I guess it was on for a public hearing that night, and much to everyone's surprise, it couldn't be heard. We had actually gotten already DEC permit. The plan had already incorporated and does incorporate all your policies from before the permit requirements of today, which is maintaining a 50 foot nondisturbance buffer, placing the house landward of that, using stone blend pervious driveway and placing the sanitary system as far as away from the wetlands as possible. So I have Mr. Luniewski here. He's a hard working guy, fireman in New York City, and he's been waiting very patiently for the processes to continue. And here we are and we're hoping that this Board can act favorably on this application so we can move forward. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Any other comment? I'd just like to see, I don't think it's on the survey, the 50 foot buffer?. MS. MOORE: It is. It's a checkered 50 foot nondisturbance buffer area. It should be highlighted in gray. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm color blind. MS. MOORE: It's darkened TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We don't have that. MS. MOORE: I can get additional prints. I'm sorry, I thought you had that. Let me see what Young and Young sent me. I'll get you more of those if you need them. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh One's good. If there's no other comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. MS. MOORE: Just one thing, I just want to be sure that we have a permit that mirrors the DEC permit. I believe I gave Board of Trustees 61 April 21, 2004 you a copy of the DEC permit, Lauren, it should be in your file. It should state construct a single-family dwelling, septic system, place 200 cubic yards of clean fill. That's all. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's not ringing a bell. MS. MOORE: I'll be sure you get this as well. You know why, because it's probably reactivating the permit application from the original packet. At that time we did not have DEC permit. I'll fax it to you tomorrow morning and that way you have it in your file. TRUSTEE FOSTER: What's the fill for, the sanitary? MS. MOORE: Just the sanitary to the extent that it's required. MR. JOHNSTON: How much did you think it was going to be? MS. MOORE: Surveyor told me 200 cubic yards. TRUSTEE FOSTER: It could be. MS. MOORE: We have an updated one that we use for the DEC with the nondisturbance buffer, I think that in all other respects the surveys are the same. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Looks basically the same. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay. I've got a motion to close the hearing; do I have a second? TRUST,EE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE TRUSTEE TRUSTEE TRUSTEE KRUPSKh All in favor. ALL AYES KRUPSKh Make a motion to approve the application. KING: Second. KRUPSKh All in favor? ALL AYES. 24. Patricia C. Moore on behalf of LISA EDSON requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling on piles, swimming pool, pervious driveway, sanitary system with concrete retaining wall, 450 cubic yard of fill, dry wells, a 50 foot nondisturbance buffer, and connection to public water and utilities. Located: 9326 Main Bayview Road, Southold. SCTM # 87-5-25. TRUSTEE KING: Anyone here to comment? MS. MOORE: Yes, thank you. This should look very familiar to you because we've seen it over and over. Unfortunately my client didn't read the date very carefully, and they had actually had to come in and amend the original permit that was issued October 2001 because the Health Department required reconfiguration of the dry wells along the road. That was done in April 2002 and I guess she looked at it and thought they had gotten an extension on the permit. Unfortunately, that hadn't been done and we got caught up in the moratorium and no work had been done at that point. So Board of Trustees 62 April 21, 2004 she's got her DEC, she has her Health Department, and she's got everything, and she's ready to make a Building Permit application. All we need is the re-issuance of the permit. TRUSTEE KING: We need to see that house staked, Pat, there's nothing out there at all. MS. MOORE: This is the exact same application that you approved and you went through massive review. The big thing was, as far as you were concerned, was the drainage along the right of way. And we went and staked it three or four times because the stakes kept getting removed. We have DEC approval. We have everything. I was hoping you'd recollect this application having gone through at least two or three hearings the first time. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Honestly, that was two years ago and probably how many hundreds of applications. MS. MOORE: I don't know Lisa Edson, I thought this one would, ring a bell I~ecause you were out there so many times. TRUSTEE KRUPSt~I: It rang a bell, but we still want to see it. MS. MOORE: Okay. I'll have the surveyor stake the corners again. All right, so we'll adjourn. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thanks. We just didn't feel comfortable. We walked around there. MS. MOORE: I saw that they staked the driveway. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We walked out there because we couldn't drive because they staked it. And we just said, you know. MS. MOORE: You didn't remember where it went, okay. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Let them stake it. MS. MOORE: All right. TRUSTEE KING: Make a motion to table this until we reinspect the site. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI' Peggy? 25. Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of DEBRA VlCTOROFF requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling with on-site sewage disposal system. Located: 445 and 505 Dogwood Lane, Southold. SCTM #54-529.1 and 55 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of this application? MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, please. Jim Fitzgerald for the applicant. Our initial effort on this project was to apply to the DEC for a freshwater wetland permit, and what we got from them was a letter of nonjurisdiction on their own -- it Board of Trustees 63 April 21, 2004 was their idea. And have a copy of that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You supplied us with that. MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. So we went from there to the Zoning Board and during the public hearing at the Zoning Board, some of the adjacent properly owners appeared concerned with the existence of wetlands on the property, and as a result of that the Zoning Board indicated that they would want the Trustees to offer an opinion to review the project and either approve or suggest modifications to it before they acted on it. So we're here, unfortunately, this was in the middle of the moratorium, so it was delayed As you know from your inspection last week, there is indeed standing water in the northwest corner of the property and that's about 1,500 square feet. We have environmental evalua'~ion reports from both Rob Hermann and Chuck Bowman, and I think you have copies of both of those reports. Both of the consultants indicated that, according to the definition in Chapter 97, there are quote, freshwater wetlands in the area. However, we would like to suggest that the area, although it is wet, is not really something that needs to be preserved for a number of reasons, which Rob Hermann particularly has indicated in his report', the main thrust of his report was that the so-called freshwater wetlands is very small, is completely surrounded by development, consists almost entirely of phragmites, which he refers to as -- correctly of course -- as a nonnative and invasive plant and, as you know in many parts of the country it's considered a weed and people try very hard to figure out ways to rid themselves of it, but anyhow, the point of all this is that although the area is wet, it does not seem to us {o be worthy of your protection. Although, indeed, it may be worthy of'te§~lation. The project pi'an which was initially submitted to the Trustees -- I'm ~orry, to the ZBA was significantly more grand than that which we have submitted here. There was a deck, there was a p0ol, and the structure was much closer to the west property tine, and it has been reduced to I think a bare minimum now, And considering the fact that there are questionable areas in that corner of the property, something which I pointed out to you, which I would ask that you consider in your review of the project is that as I showed you when you were~ inspecting the properly, and the 1974 five eastern town topog)-aphic map, which the county produced, there appears a relatively large depression in the area, a relatively small piece of which is on the Victoroff Board of Trustees 64 April 21, 2004 property, but a large part of it is on the adjoining properties to the west and to the north of the area, runs in generally a northwest direction. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can you wait until we find that? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is it the area, what is it? MR. FITZGERALD: Here's a new version of it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What he's saying is that that was apparently a depression there and now, of course, it's not. MR. FITZGERALD: The last part of that is apparently the construction on the properties on the north and to the west included fill to the extent that the areas in both yards are significantly higher in elevation than that corner, at least, of the Victoroff property. And Mr. Hermann describes its most significant value at this point as acting as a catch basin for the runoff from the adjacent properties to the north and the west. So it would appear that, at least some of the existing situation, is due to unnatural causes. And, as I said, we would appreciate it if you would take that into account in your review of the project. Now, Miss Victoroff is here, would you want to say anything? MS. VICTOROFF: Can I read this letter?. MR. FITZGERALD: Can she read this letter?. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes. MR. JOHNSTON: I think all of the Trustees have a copy of the le'~ter she's proposing to read. If she starts to read it and .it's the same one, maybe we can just stipulate. Why don't you start reading it and make sure it's the same one. MS. VICTOROFF: I'll just start. "1 am writing to you to provide additional information in support of my request for an application for a Southold Town Wetlands Permit. The hearing for which I'll be attending this Wednesday. "In 2001 I purchased a small plot of vacant land on Dogwood Lane near Kenny's Beach Road. I love that area and I wanted to find a house there, but I couldn't afford one and the vacant land seemed like a promising alternative." MR. JOHNSTON: For the benefit of people objecting, maybe she should read it because they haven't heard it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Continue. MS. VICTOROFF: Okay. "In 2001 I purchased a small plot of vacant land on Dogwood Lane near Kenny's Beach Road. I love that area and wanted to find a Board of Trustees 65 April 21, 2004 house there but could not afford one and the vacant land seemed like a promising alternative. I'm a single woman living in an apartment in New York City and a house has always been a dream of mine, and to have a house near the water is an ultimate dream. "1 was told early on to make sure that there was no protected wetlands on the property and that my first step should be to contact the Department of Environmental Conservation to find out if they considered my parcel part of their wetlands map. I did so via Jim Fitzgerald, my expediter. I was very happy when almost two years ago, June 27, 2002, I received a letter from the DEC stating that my lot was more than 100 feet from regulated wetlands, and so therefore, according to the DEC, I would not need a permit to build my house. "1 went ahead with my survey on which was drawn a small house with an adjoining swimming pool, I was advised that if I though I might ever want anything in addition to the house, it needed to appear on the survey from the very beginning. I'd seen a tiny house on Shelter Island years before with a little pool, and my property was even larger, so I thought I could and should include the pool. I also knew it was something I could let go if I needed to. However, at a subsequent hearing before the Zoning Board of Appeals my neighbors enlisted an attorney, who, on their behalf, reported that there were phragmites, wetlands plants, growing along the border between my property and theirs, and assuming there were wetlands there, warned that I should; not be permitted to go forward with my plates. "The ZBA asked me to have the area investigated and mapped to determine if there were wetlands accordir~g:to the definition of the Town Trustees. I hired RGb Hermann, a wetlands expert, to do so and at the same time, the coalition of neighbors hired their own expert, Chuck Bowman, to investigate the same issue. I'm not clear whether he actually trav~rserl my property, I was not asked to grant him. permission to do so, although I would inave, if asked. "According to both reports there's a Board of Trustees 66 April 21, 2004 section of my property that would be considered wetlands according to the Southold Town Code definition, which defines wetlands as any area that includes phragmites at least. The reports came to basically the same conclusions and you, the Trustees, will certainly get an opportunity to include both. I've included both in the package but I wanted to point out something about which both reports concur. The reports agree that the wetlands exist in the area of my property that is lower than the adjoining properties. Rob's report says that quote, The wetlands current primary function appears to be that of a catch basin for runoff from the surrounding properties, unquote. And also, quote again, The shape of the wetland indicates that it's boundaries have already been artificially altered and: defihed by the surrounding developed land, unquote. "Chuck's report says, quote, Elevations within the area descend from the adjoining parcels towards thb north and west, end quote. And he also makes: reference to, quoting him again, The north side of the Iow area, unquote. It seems as if these we~la,ds are not original or natural, but have ernerge0as a result of development that adjoins rnypr.dp~rty. However, as a result of the wetlands reports~ I- have revised my plans for the property as'follows: I've moved the house footprint as,Jar away from the back of the property lin, where the phragmites are as possible while still leaving a reasonable tree line between the house and the street. The septic system has been moved fi.om the southwest side of the house footprint, to the dlagonally opposite northeast side. There v~[ll)l~e a concrete retaining wall around the.sept~; system on the opposite side of the property from' fhe wetlands. I have replaced the rear deck .w,. ith a rear patio that I understand will requ:ire mi~'imall: land disturbance. I have eliminated the. side deck. I have eliminated the pool. I have eliminated the driveway. These changes have ali been reflected on the most recent survey that you have, the third one since I've had drawn since I bought the property. "1 read the Southold Town Code Section Boa.rd of Trustees 67 April 21, 2004 97-12, and under the heading Findings A, the code states a desire by the Town to preserve the wetlands since they, quote, constitute important physical, social, aesthetic, recreational and economic assets to existing and future residents of the town, unquote. I believe the small pocket of wetlands on my property did not fall strictly under the protected criteria listed above in terms of physical, social, aesthetic -- except to my contiguous neighbors -- recreational or economic assets they provide to the town. In addition, if the attempt is to protect assets for the future residents of Southold, it's ironic that as a potential future resident myself, I might not be able to enjoy those assets since I might have to sacrifice my own property. "1 am a nature lover and a vigilant proponentof.protecting the environment, not only for the health ~f~the planet, but also for the pleasure of its occupants. The passion with which the Trustees protect the lands of Southold is much of the reaso,n, f iiove the north fork. I understand why my neighbors do not want to have someone building, a ho~s~ near theirs. I too want privacy and quiet, whi.ch is why this area with its small houses and:DBtural appearance so appeals to me. have no desire to change the character of the neighborhood, and I wish to have a small house and to landsca'pe the land to provide the utmost privacy for me and thy r~ighborS I do understand why the rules proteCtflag!the wetlands were drawn up, and I respect them.,, but I also hope that the Trustees will evaluate,thiS request and can offer some sort of compromise as I have compromised, so that I can finally realize, my dream of living on the north fork." The end. TRUSTEE KING: Thankyou. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Thank you. Is there any one else who would like to speak for or against this application? MR. ROZAKIS: Good evening, my name is Tom Rozakis, I'm an adjoining property owner, and I'm in opposition of the wetland application. You might have received a letter that I faxed to you yesterday. I would like to read it in the record, if I may. Board of Trustees 68 April 21, 2004 "Southold Town Trustees: Dear Sirs and Madam: I on behalf of ourselves and our neighbors John and Eva Kirincic, who are here and Virginia Cudey, who is not, we are writing to formally state our opposition to the wetland application referenced above. "As adjoining owners we have been monitoring this project since it was proposed to the ZBA last year, and we believe that this wetland application is before you due to our insistence that the Town Code be observed. We have expended much of our own time as well as considerable resources retaining an attorney, Helen Rosenblum, and environmental consultant, Chuck Bowman, in pursuit of this goal. Unfortunately, the 12 days notice tha, t we had, neither of them could attend today, both had prior commitments, although Helen might show up since it's so late and she said she might try. "The ZBA variance application filed in March 2003 contained incorrect representations concernihg the existence of wetlands on the property. We quote directly from the application: 'Are there areas which contain wetlands grasses?' The applicant's answer was no. In fact, there are several areasthat contained a total of almost 1,800 square feet of wetlands grasses, about 1,500 square feet in one corner, there's an entire line of phragmites and other wetland grasses along the road and in the corner, where they plan to put their new septic system. "D-2 on the application, 'Are the wetland area shown on the map submitted?" The applicant's answer was 'hot applicable.' The map submitted did, not show the significant wetland area in the northwest cei-ner of the lot. The septic system was located ther6 instead. The latest map dated November Of last year shows 1,500 square feet in that corder. "D-4, 'Have you contacted the Office of the Trustees for its determination of jurisdiotion?' Applicant's answer, 'not applicable.' It has been our contention for almost one year, through three ZBA hearings and after quite a bit of expense, that the Trustees jurisdiotion is most definitely applicable to this Board of Trustees 69 April 21, 2004 property despite the protestation of the applicant. A reading of the minutes of those ZBA hearings, especially the one held last October will clearly reflect this. "By all accounts, the parcel is inside a freshwater wetland as defined by New York State Law. Our consultant, Chuck Bowman forwarded you an aerial photograph and his analysis in early October. He describes a wetland system in the entire project vicinity that is connected to the subject parcel by a band of mature wetland trees that extend into the subject parcel. Later that month, Robert Hermann, the applicant's expert, visited the pro'petty. His report agrees that the evidence, quote, establishes that area, the northwest corner, has as wetland, pursuant to the Town code. Mr. Hermann minimizes its ecological value, however, without much evidence to that fact. "Finally, last week the Conservation Advisory CounCil made its unanimous recommendation that this wetland application be disapproved because the entire parcel contains wetlands. A sparadok (phoen.) also was found along the road, and, in fae;t, that Mr. BOwman's aerial photograph shows'that the wetlands continue through the property. "There is no question that this is a wetlands and for some of us there are no further questions. Others, however, will question its naturalness and its value. On the first issue, briefly, topographic, plant and anecdotal evidence indicates this lot has been in its present state for decades. The contours are consistent with the swale that runs from the Great Pond to Little Pond along the rear properties of all the lots along the north side of Dogwood Lane. The three black willow trees distributed on the property which Mr. Hermann, in fact, cites have diameters we estimate to be from 18 to 36 inches and are up to 60 feet tall. There is a stand of red maple that is shown on the aerial photograph as well on the northeast corner of the property, with trunk diameters we estimate to be up to 12 inches. Since they moved to their property adjacent to the subject parcel 35 years ago, the Kirincics have observed ever present standing water. Board of Trustees 70 April 21, 2004 "B, this part of Southold is identified on the Town website as an area of high groundwater. This is natural groundwater, not that created by landscaping and home building. The elevation of the standing water in the northwest corner of the lot is consistent with the elevation of natural groundwater in the area. "C, the DEC protects dozens of similar small wetland areas all around the Kenny's Beach area. We were told by Robert Marsh, a biologist at the Bureau of Habitat State DEC in June 2003, the fact that the DEC does not protect all wetlands as defined by ~hate law is an arbitrary effect of their map, which does not reflect all the wetlands in the state. It is up to the individual towns to enforce the prbtb~:tion of other lands that meet their criteria. In. fact, the notice of nonjurisdiction 'included in this application is actually a flag cfill[ng for Trustee action. To quote the final sentence of this document dated June 27, 2002, 'P!ease be further advised that this letter d.oesn't relieve you of the responsibility of obtaining any necbssary permits or approvals from other agencies. "As to the value of this wetland as habitat, it ~vouid be hard to determine that during a 15 minute irfspection. It is a fact, however, that it serves as a nesting area for snapping turtles, a corridor for foraging foxes, owls and hawks, and a stopover refuge for American woodcock, cedar wax Wirlgs and other migrating birds. We have witnessed and. en~J9Yed this natural drama for between 1.5 ~i~d 3.5 years and sincerely believe that this property, i~',its current state contributes to the natural dicersif~y of Southold. "Of course, the issue of property rights comes up. we w[ill .not get into that right now. We have no mtere~st.~ln~ causing economic harm to any individual. We regret that our offers to purchase this property at. market value have been rebuffed throughout this le~r~thy process. Our interest is seeing the ~l'O,U,~hold Town Code enforced and the shared resource 9f our community preserved. "We tho,~efo,re urge the Trustees to accept unanimous [e..*~mmendation of the Conservation Advisory Coun~;i'l and deny this application. Board of Trustees 71 April 21, 2004 Respectfully submitted, Thomas A. Rozakis and my wife, Ann Rozakis." TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anybody else who would like to speak on behalf of this application? Comments from the Board? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't see how -- I just want one comment on the snapping turtles. I don't really think this could be nesting area for the snapping turtles. They always lay their eggs in a sandy sunny spot. And on field inspection I didn't see any sunny spots or sandy spots. MR. ROZAKIS: There were two photographs entered into the TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I saw those. MR. ROZAKIS: I happen to have a camera or brought a camera the day of the first hearing at the ZBA because I realized that there was a misrepresentation about the wetlands. As I was walking out of the house after the ZBA hearing a snapping turtle walked past me, and, in fact, every June they walk through our property. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But they're not nesting. MR. ROZAKIS: The land there in that northwest corner is wet, sandy and that's where they're going. And the Kirincics have photographs of the babies coming out. The small turtles they come through our property as well. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh They don't nest where it's wet. They nest where it's dry. MR. ROZAKIS: Apparently there are areas we see them going in, we don't follow them in, and we see the small turtles come out. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh From seeing the site and seeing turtles nests - MR. ROZAKIS: All we can tell you is what we've seen every year. The turtles themselves are up to 16 inches in diameter. They're very large and formidable creatures. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I have a question for the applicant. The elevation is obviously very Iow, and the test hole shows a foot and-a-half to water. I don't understand, I see that the neighbors when we walked through and we didn't look -- I didn't look at the Rozakis house, but we looked at the two other properties and I'm going to -- the Kirincic and the Kelenpelidis proper[y, the two adjacent properties, you can notice the elevations have been raised considerably. How do you propose to put a house there at that elevation under those conditions? MR. FITZGERALD: Do you mean with the continuing collection Board of Trustees 72 April 21, 2004 of runoff from the adjacent property? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh No. The Iow elevation, period. MR. FITZGERALD: Well, you mean from the standpoint of the septic system? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, the septic system I can see has been elevated to meet, probably I would assume the Suffolk County Health Department standards. No, I mean the house itself wouldn't have obviously a basement? MR. FITZGERALD: Probably not. TRUSTEE FOSTER: It's in a flood plain, isn't it? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Artie, help me out here in the elevation busi.ness. What elevation would the first floor have to be? TRUSTEE FOSTE'R: It's in the Flood Zone A-E. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh What would that require? TRUSTEE FOSTER: You've got to be 8' or maybe 11' above mean high wa'~er or average high water for the flood plain. Is this lot right next to, the comer lot? MR,. FITZGERALD,: Which lot do you mean by the corner lot? TRUSTEE FOS:J'~=R.: This road comes out on Kenny's Road and Soundview Avenue? MS. VlCTOROFF~ This lot is between two houses; is that what you mean? TRUSTEE FOSTER: If you go towards the beach on Kenny's Road and you make a right on Dogwood, there's a corner house on the left, right? MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Is this the next lot? MR. JOHNSTON: Second lot in? MR. FR-'ZGER,ALD: It's the only undeveloped lot on the block. TRUSTEE FOSTER: So it's just before the turn. All right. MR. FITZGERALD: If l may, one of the points that the gentleman brought up was urging you to apply the tenets of the revised or existing Town Code. But it's my understanding that the Town Code doesn't prohibit development in or near freshwater wetlands but rather gives the Trustees the jurisdiction to regulate the use or development or whatever of freshwater wetland. I don't think there's any prohibition. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I think it takes all the runoff. Did you see a catch basin in front of it, or a pipe going in from the Town? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I don't know about that. It shows from what Mr. Fitzgerald gave us before, much of the area is a Iow area and the majority has been filled and this is one spot that hasn't been. My question is, one of my concerns Board of Trustees 73 April 21, 2004 are when you have a Iow spot like this, it is a valuable function for the area in that it does take the runoff, whether the adjacent lots are filled or not, it's taking the runoff from them and from a lot of different areas. It provides a valuable service, because the water's going to go somewhere obviously. If you fill that, water's going to be somewhere else. MR. FITZGERALD: Unless, of course, the adjoining property owners can keep their runoff on their own property, as you frequently require other applicants, new applicants to do. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh That's correct. Now on this property, though, what steps could be taken to protect that wetland areas and again, the house elevation has got to be addressed because would there be proposed fill? MR. FITZGERALD: You mean the construction details, Al? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I mean, are you going to bring fill in to bring it up or wi'.ll it be on pilings? MR. FITZGERALD: We had not gotten to the point where the specific design features of the house was involved, but I mean from thestandpoint of this construction. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Well, it's definitely important because you know, you don,'t have much area there and you're going to have pretty much zero disturbance along -- you've only got seven feet frorti the patio and certainly if you did any kind of basement excavation there you wouldn't be able to go down more than a foot or so, so it would be minimal disturbance. But if you've gQt to meet the flood plain you're going to have to be up ir~ the air whether it be on a raised concrete foundation or on pilings. MR. FITZGER,~.LD: Yes. TRUSTEE FO:SIER: One of the two. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think that's a detail that has to be addressed. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Regardless of which it is, you still have a minimum amount of disturbance that you'd be allowed to develop. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Obviously, I think you'd have to show a driveway also. MR. FITZGERALD: Why is that? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Because where are you going to park your ca r? MR. FITZGERALD: A number of the folks in the area park the cars in the street, at least that's been our observation. TRUSTEE FOSTER: There's room for a driveway on the -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKh There's plenty of room for a driveway. TRUSTEE FOSTER: -- south west, northwest, what is it? Board of Trustees 74 April 21, 2004 west side of the property. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I mean, that's a detail I'd like to see on this job. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll tell you why, because we got into this a year or so ago on a house proposal and a great deal of fill was necessary to raise the elevation and et cetera, et cetera, and it became an issue of runoff and well, I'll leave it at that. So I'd like to see that addressed. What is the final, the proposed first floor elevation and how do you propose to accomplish that, and then I would think put a driveway on there because that seems to be something that would be -- if you're going to build a house there, it seems you should have a driveway. Maybe I'm old fashioned. MR. FITZGERALD: Let me ask you this: When you were there, the areas of, quote, standing water -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure. MR. FITZGERALD: -- is indicated on the map. However, at least at this time of year'the phragmites are only in the -- there's an area within that triangle that is either sparsely vegetated or not vegetated at all right now. And I think it would be valuabl~for us-to know how the Trustees feel about intrusion into thai area by fill or whatever; in other words, how important do you think this wetland is based upon what you saw and what fhe gentleman described this veritable menagerie of wildlife? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Based on what I heard tonight and what I read in the file from Rob Hermann's report and Chuck Bowman's report -- and this is just me, and the Board can comment - I think its wetland value-wise, it seems to be as highly an impacted wetland as I've ever seen. Does it have a value? Like I stated earlier, I think it does have a valt]e in that it does control water and it provides for a recharge area for water. I would assume it's groundwater. Because of the e[.evations that are shown, and your test hole says a foot an.d-a~half, and the elevation there is five and-a-half ancl there's water there. You go down to four and I assume it's groUndwater. I think it provides a valuable service in some a~ea, and I wouldn't want to see that filled. MR. FITZGERALD: Unless perhaps if that's its main value then I'm sure we can figure out some way of taking care of the water. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI- I don't know, does the Board have any? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Yes. I want to comment on it. If you pull out Rob's report and Chuck Bowman's really basically said the same thing, that the primary function of the property Board of Trustees 75 April 21, 2004 appears to be of a catch basin for runoff for surrounding properties. The shape of the wetlands also indicates that its boundaries have already been artificially altered and defined by the surrounding developed land, Specifically through your topographical survey is not detailed enough to depict a depression. Its southern and western limits are defined by a sharp and virtually linear increase in elevation at your southern and western property lines. Though I am hypothesizing due to my lack of firsthand knowledge of history of the area, it is likely that this nearly linear increase in elevation at the property boundaries coincides with the northern eastern limits of fill that were placed to raise the adjoining properties at the time of their development. Therefore, my findings are that while a small dep[essional freshwater wetland exists in the.westerly portion of,the property, it has little likely been impa'cted':alCeady by the surrounding developments and is limited in ecological va'lqe. And it also says -- I should have got this befbre -- However, ecological value of this wetland is. hpwever limited, not only is the area small and lacking in diversityi it is comprised almost entirely of phragmites, a non-natiYe and invasive plant. It is completely surmunided by development and effect ve y d~sconneoted, a~ t.~¢..laJ3dscape level from other undeveloped natural habitat. Therefore, the area is extremely limited in its ability to provide e~her a habitat or corridor for wildlife in its current primary function appears to be that of a basin for'runoff. Th~re!s your environmental expert report so take it from there. MS. ROZAK1S: Ann F~C. akJs. Can I ask Trustees to address the Conservation Advisory Council's disapproval and the context for that. TRUSTEE FOSTER: We do, we always do in every application. TRUSTEE I<~UPSKI: We don't know the context. They act independen..tly o.f us. We don't meet with them. TRUSTEE FOSTER: They just give us a report and we consider their concern and everybody else's concern, and we toss it around. Actually, if you've been to these meetings, you'll know that we have a history of dragging things on from month to month, and it's usually because of concerns of the people, the neighbors and ourselves and the CAC, as well. So, this isn't something that we're going to just jump at and make a d, ecision, because there are concerns. I just wanted to point out that the wetland experts in as much as they say it ha'..s some wetlands value, it doesn't appear to be this tremendously pristine wetland. And we have to weigh Board of Trustees 76 April 21, 2004 all these things, and the experts are the experts and we certainly have to give their opinions serious consideration. MS. VICTOROFF: Could I speak, please? I just wanted to say that the wetlands areas when we're talking about whether or not, I mean you don't want it to be touched, and I am happy to stay away from it or not fill it or anything if I don't know what the possibilities are, but the house footprint is the area that the area that I want to put the house and I would make every effort not to touch that whole section of wetlands, so that one of the concerns that you mentioned was you didn't want it to be filled in or the elevation raised to meet that of the adjacent areas, well, that is not my intention anyway at all. That's part of what I was mentioning that I moved everything as far away from that area as I could. And I also would like to address something else that Mr. Rozakis had implied, which is that our protestations about whether or not there were wetlands, protestations that's not true. I went by the expediter's opinion that once the DEC had sent us a letter of nonjud~sdiction, that we were good to go, not that we were avoiding anything from the Trustees. So when it says "does not apply," firs~t of all, I didn't fill that out; second of all, that's not a protestation or an attempt to be dishonest. T~anks. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Sir?. MR. ROZ,~KI$: I just wanted to say that Mr. Bowman's report ties in this parcel with the larger vicinity of wetlands which are shown not only in the aerial, but you'll see the exact tree stahds in this -- I found that picture that was mysteriously ih the file that was used during your walk-through end you'll see my house with the tree stand, the lar[le wetlands, which is connected. So, Mr. Bowman thought the e~tire'parcel was wetlands as does the Conservation Advisory Council. It's not just limited to the northwest corner. It's a mature wetland in 80 percent of the parcel anda sta. nding water in that corner. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Mr. Rozakis, in all likelihood we'll be reviewing this~application next month on our field inspection Ma~ on 12th. Is it possible for us to walk down your property line to gain access? MR. ROZAKIS: Yes, without a doubt. In last June I gave you permission in a letter. You can anywhere you want, however the property has not been staked fully, nor has the house been fully sta~ed. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just try to bring this to some sort a -- Board of Trustees 77 April 21, 2004 MR. JOHNSTON: When you do your field inspection, when we do our field inspection, are we going to see any of these wetland species on the other side of the stockade fence or on the other side of the chain link fence? MR. KIRINCIC: No. Maybe in June, July, not now. It's too cold for them. MR. ROZAKIS: You're talking about turtles. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Any indicator species of wetlands on your property, or the young lady's property there? MS. ROZAKIS: We're on the eastern side, are you speaking about the north and -- MR. ROZAKIS: Mr. Kirincaledes has a lawn that is inundated with water most of the time in that corner. I don't believe there's any wetlands species there, and Mr. Kirincio has sand always had sand. And the photographs of the snapping turtle go thr, ough his property with the sand. TRUSTEE KR~JPSKI: That's where they nest in the sand. So I think that!s the area. TRUSTEE K:RUPSKI: Can we walk on your area? MR. KIRINCIC: Any time. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Appreciate it, thank you. I think we need from the appl!cant, because we're going to try to move this along, we need that house corner and the patio corner staked. MR. FITZGERALD: They are staked now. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What did we see in the field, that was the last inspection? TRUSTEE KING: Stumps and some grass. MR. FITZGERALD: Two corners of the house. TRUSTEE KP~UPSKI: We walked in here. MR. FITZGERALD: Here (indicating). TRUSTEE KP~UPSKI: That's what we want. What we want is you're going to have to figure out elevation-wise on the house by May 12th. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Indicate on this survey which corners are stakes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: He did, he showed us. TRUSTEE FOSTER: You got it, Okay. I'm going to go out tomorrow morning and take a look at it. MR. FITZGERALD: Here Artie. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: They say the water table's about normal right now. TRUSTEE FOSTER: They are staked right now? MR. FITZGERALD: That's correct. MR. JOHNSTON: Do we have permission to go on these people's land too? Board of Trustees 78 April 21, 2004 TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Which people? MR. JOHNSTON: K-E-L-E-N-P-E-L-I-D-I-S? MR. ROZAKIS: They're not a part of our action, I don't know. MS. VICTOROFF: Can I ask, when you did go out and look at the property, had it been staked, the house? So did you see where the stakes would be? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I was in Town Hall at 7:00, this was about 5:00 at night. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I remember seeing one or two, but I don't remember. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Seems like if it wasn't staked we would have remarked on it. MS. VlCTOROFF: I think Jim told me at least afterwards that he had pointed out the house stakes to the people. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh It must have been staked, otherwise we would have said it wasn't staked. MR. FITZGERALD: It was staked and you saw it. MS. VlCTOROFF: I'm questioning what now on the second visit you're going to look for, no one saw the stakes? TRUSTEE KING: One thing we're interested in seeing what the first floor elevation would be. MS. VlCTOROFF: Do you need to go out to the property again to see that? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're going to be out as a Board on May 12th throughout the whole town, so it's better for us to go and look at it. TRUSTEE FOSTER: How can you see what the first floor elevation is going to be? MS. VlCT'OROFF: Exactly. My question is, what is the difference between this second viewing -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Because if the elevation currently is 5'4" and your elevation's going to be -- I'll make up a number -- 10, then. when we're standing there at 4", we know that the first floor elevation is going to be five feet up. TRUSTEE FOSTER: We need to know what the first floor elevation is. MS. VlCTOROFF: But don't we -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're going to have an idea, then you're going tosay well, I need pilings, or I need to put fill around it, some requirement by you. MS. VlCTOROFF: Don't we provide that to you guys? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Yes, you do. MS. VlCTOROFF: But before -- I mean, when you go out, you guys don't say to me it needs to be five feet? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh No. Before May 12th you're going to find Board of Trustees 79 April 21, 2004 out from the Building Department what the first floor elevation is going to be. TRUSTEE FOSTER: The surveyor should know that. Surveyor should be able to determine by being in the flood zone that you're in, he should be able to determine what your finished floor elevation is going to be, and he does not necessarily have to put it on a survey and go through the expense of marking up another survey. All we have to do is know what it is because we have an existing elevation of 5.4, and as Al said, if your finished first floor elevation has to be 11 feet, all we have to do is do the math, and we know where that's going to be in relation to the existing grade. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And you'll know what you have to do to try to accomplish that physically, you can't just put the house there, it's got to be - MS. VICTOROFF: I understand all of that totally, but then when you go out again after I give you those plans, what are you looking for?. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh That's what we look at afterwards. We see how it's going to fit on this piece of property MS. VICTOROFF: Okay. MR. JOHNSTON: Jim, do you understand what has to be submitted? MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, I do. TRUSTEE FOSTER: But the point I'm trying to make is at this point in time you don't have to go have another survey drawn. Ail we need is the number of that elevation. You can have John Aylers - is that who did this? MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. TRUSTEE FOSTER: -- call the office. I can't see wasting their money if this isn't going to happen. At some point in time, we're goingto want to know what the house is going to be constructed on, whether it be piles or concrete foundation, because that will determine how much disturbance you're going to make on the property. But certainly we don't want you to go out and provide all that information now because it's costly. So first let us look at the finished floor elevation and the degree of wetlands on the property and make a determination as to whether we're going to entertain app.roving this. If that's the case, then we'll ask you for more'information. But certainly, we don't want you to waste your money. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's unnecessary anyway if you tell us whatever the elevation is. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Right. MS. VlCTOROFF: Who should John Aylers call? Board of Trustees 80 April 21, 2004 TRUSTEE FOSTER: Call the office and talk to Lauren and give her the first floor elevation number. TRUSTEE KRUPSKi: Peggy, is this yours? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes, am I tabling? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You are. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I11 make a motion to table the wetland application of Debra Victoroff until next month. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor?. ALL AYES. 26, Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of SALVATORE GUERRERA requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling with on-site sewage disposal system and publie water, and construct a walkway and fixed dock 220' overall, and one mooring pile 20' from the end of the fixed dock. Located: 1450 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck. SCTM #122-4-44.6 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone who would like to comment on this application? MR. FITZGERALD: Jim Fitzgerald for the applicant. This again, you've seen a number of times. Nothing has changed except,that the contract vendee and the owner have stopped fighting with each other and have decided to jointly pursue the original application, which is on hiatus for three years, I think. The. plan we've submitted is the same as it was when last we met Iow those many years ago. It's for a house and a relatively long walkway to get to a canal that runs behind other houses on Ole Jule Lane. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I believe out in the field we discussed possibly bringing that catwalk over to the northwest -- before I make that statement, are there any other comments? MS. DuNrcE: Can I see what you're talking about? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Sure. (Discussion) TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you want to segment the house and the dock?. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: He wants to save money, instead of havir~g a whole new wetland application, that's why they're applying for everything at once. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: We're asking him to separate it, but then it's going to cost him double on applying. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I don't know if we can do that or not. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: If you keep it together, the walkway is goin§ to take some time. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh It might take some time if you're going to Board of Trustees 81 April 21, 2004 move it. MR. FITZGERALD: Let me see if that change in the location of the walkway is okay with him, and, if so, maybe we can do the whole thing next month. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, fine. In the meantime, is there any other comment on the dock? MS. DUNNE: I have a comment. My name is Margery Dunne. My first question was when I applied, I had to get a survey, a recent survey, and it had to show the dock on it before I could apply. And I had to submit that to my neighbors. Okay, and I didn't get that. There's no -- this is not a survey by a surveyor, not what I got. MR. FITZGERALD: I don't think the regulations require a survey to be -- TRUSTEE FOSTER: Are you the neighbor?. MS. DUNNE: Yes. TRUSTEE FOSTER: So you're not applying? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's a separate part of Town Code. think that's Chapter 58, and I don't think that requires that you have to have a survey sent. ~ think you have to be notified of what's going on. You have to come into the office and check for the survey and any other particulars. MS. DUNNE:. Then the other question that I had was, I'd like to know if I could erect a fence going straight down? And I'll tell you thc problem that I have is that the land that you're talking about, you cannot walk on there, ever, unless you're walking in muck. So what they do, is they have created a p~th coming over onto my property, going down. It's ve[y o[~vlous that this path is on my property. I spoke to -- not. the owner of the property, but the -- he said that he was a builder, and that he created that path and that's fine, that he's been doing this, and he's going to keep doing it. Okay. And I told him, and I told this gentleman h~ere, t~vice, that I didn't want him on my property. And he was dearly on my property. MR. FITZGERAL:D: You told me once. MS. DUNNE: I have had to call the police. I had real estate come. on, and that's the only way they can show the people the property is they come over and they walk. I can't walk On that:piece bf property there. They have taken wood because th~'.s dry 98 percent of the time, so I guess when it Wasn't they took wood where I had it on the side and they made a. path, and I'm outraged, and I would like to know what recourse do i have. Can I put a fence going straight down on the.side of this property? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh To delineate your property line I would Board of Trustees 82 April 21, 2004 have no problem with putting up a split rail. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Up to the marsh. MS. DUNNE: That's what they have done on my property. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Up to the marsh. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh What about a split rail barbed wire? TRUSTEE FOSTER; Phragmites, what are you going to hurt? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: You got to cut it down. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh You can do a wire fence, something to delineate the property. MR. FITZGERALD: Could we talk about the application before you? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: One question we had was with the plan, that's the most recent plan that was submitted. It shows the dock crossing the property line to get to the water? MR. FITZGERALD: The extension of the property line? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's our questions when we were out in the field. It doesn't say extension of property line; it says property line. MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, this is a property line. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh So, who owns this? MR:. FITZGERALD: I think it's the Department -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKh You got to change it to over here. The suggestion has been made to move the catwalk to the other side of the property. MS. DUNNE: The DEC when I applied for my permit, they said they granted me a permit because there was a prior dock there on my property. What I got was 10 feet. I had asked for an extension, if you remember you got an extension going this way. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I remember coming out there. MS. DUNNE: Okay, so the extension would, see the dock, it would go this way. The DEC said no, you can't have that because there's no water this way on this side of the docks. When you put, you put one boat there, you can't get past. There's no way you can get past because the water is too Iow. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh That's why we asked for an alternative. MS. DUNNE: The DEC said the same, would not allow me to go this way at all. Not enough water. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: In an effort to move this along, you're going to give us an alternative for next month? Is there any other comments on the house or any other part of the plan besides the docks? MS. DUNNE: It doesn't shows on here where is the fill, you know, when they dig up, where is that going to go? Where is the sewers? Board of Trustees 83 April 21, 2004 TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Is that your current plan? MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh That's the current plan for the house. What I'd like to see on the that survey is a nondisturbance buffer maximized on that. MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh You show us that for next month. Any other comment before we table this? TRUSTEE FOSTER: No. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Ken, can you make a motion? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to table until next month. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor?. ALL AYES. MS. DUNNE: One more question. Do I have to come and show the same -- are you going to change this; am I going to be informed of changes? Do I have to come to the next meeting or not? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It's likely going to change the catwalk. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh You should call in mid-May and check, see if he came in with new plans to change the project. MS. DUNNE: I was wondering why we didn't get a copy of the plans, the neighbors. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh They don't have to send the plans. If you're interested you come in and get the copies. MS. DUNNE: Thank you. 27. Land Use Ecological Services, Inc. on behalf of GEERT MARTENS AND RAY MURRAY requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4' by 83' fixed timber catwalk, a 3' by 20' ramp and a 6' by 20' float. Located: 5028 New Suffolk Avenue, Mattituck. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of this application? MS. CANTARA: Kelly Cantara, I'm with Land Use for Geert Martens and Ray Murray and I'll answer any questions that you have? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Any other comments on this application? We had a couple comments. One, we'd like to see this staked. But two, we really weren't happy at all. Were you out there recently to this site? MS. CANTARA: Think it is last time was over the winter, it's been a couple months. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh The proximity to the other dock is a Board of Trustees 84 April 21, 2004 little close, we'd like to see a little more separation. And there's this great big oak tree in the middle of the property, I don't know if it's in the middle, but it's more towards the north, but we'd like to see the dock come out more or less from that oak tree. So they're going to have to show stairs down the bluffs, and the bank to the dock and also we'd like -- we need soundings in that location, and maybe another 40, 50 feet out, so that we know about the water depth. MS. CANTARA: From the oak tree? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: From the end of the proposed docks. So they can give us soundings from that location to the end of the proposed dock and put a stake in there so they know the extent of it for our May 12th inspection. Then also provide us with, since you're going to have to do soundings anyway, go out another 50 'feet with soundings, so we know what the water depth is further out. MS. CANTARA: That's where, that's in the location where the dock is, on the plans or that's in front of the oak tree where you want the dock? TRUSTEE I~RUPSKt: The oak tree. We just would like it further to the north. MS. CANTARA: When we had originally drafted the plans, we had done soundings farther to the north and there wasn't enough water depth. Now I know as far as with the other dock, basically it encroaches onto -- it's essentially an illegal dock which: encroaches over those property lines. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We've been through that many times. MS. CANTARA: Yes, exactly. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You show a float, is there any reasonable expectation o.f ge¢ing,a DEC permit on that? MS. CANTARA:~[ We have a DEC permit. TRUSTEE KF~UPSKI: YOu do? Two foot of water that's surprising, right? TRUSTEE KtNG: Seasonal floats. MS. CANT/~RA: It's seasonal, when we did soundings I believe the minimum.depth was two and-a-half feet when we were out there. That may be changed, I don't know. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Make a motion to table that and we'll see you next month. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh All in favor? ALI_ AYES TRUSTEE K~UPSKI: If you could actually stake both locations, the one that you proposed tonight and the other one to the north. Obviously, if there's some drastic variation in depth, use the oak tree as a reference not as a Board of Trustees 85 April 21, 2004 fixed permanent marker. MS. CANTARA: Right. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So if the water depth is much better 20 feet south of it, that's fine too. MS. CANTARA: Okay. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Thank you. MR. JOHNSTON: Did you get an okay from the Corps and the DEC, both? MS. CANTARA: The Corps is pending but we did get a Department of State and the DEC. MR. JOHNSTON: You'll get that to us. MS. CANTARA: I'll send you State and DEC and Corps as soon as we get it. 28. Land Use Ecological Services, Inc. on behalf of CHARLES SNOW requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct the existing 4' by 39.4' fixed timber catwalk, add a 4' by 19' fixed timber catwalk to the landward end of the existing catwalk and a 4' by 31' fixed timber catwalk to the seaward end of the existing catwalk, install a 3' by 20' ramp and a 6' by 20' float. Located 2826 Cox Neck Road, Mattituck. SCTM #113-8-7.5 TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to comment on this project? MS. CANTARA: Kelly Cantara for Land Use Ecological Services for Charles Snow. TRUSTEE KING: Was there ever any old permit on this dock; does it have an existing permit? MS. CANTARA: I'm not sure, to be honest with you. The existing DEC permit, I don't see. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't think there is. MS. CANTARA: Yeah, I just have existing permits. I don't see any old permits in there, but we do have existing permits from the DEC, the Army Corps and the Department of State. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Existing permits for this structure as current or for the proposal? MS. CANTARA: For the proposal, I'm sorry. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Okay. TRUSTEE KING: Probably basically a new permit, right? We looked at it, the Conservation Advisory Council recommends approval with condition to reconstruct the existing 4' by 39' adding 4' by 19' catwalk, basically it's what they have asked for. CAC recommends approval of the application with the condition no large trees are removed. We went out and looked at it, and it's basically what our Board of Trustees /~1:['~ April 21, 2004 Albert J. t~upski, President ~._~~~ Towa'x I-Iall James IGng Vice-President 58095 Route 25 n the P.O. Box 1179 Ag~irli~~ there s enough th Pegg~/.~.t~il21~,son k~;~~~~J Telephone (631) 765-1892 TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I agr iee~~h k we all F~ (631) 765-1366 agree. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We do. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I think the Board agrees that the seaward end of the dock is that, you're going to get intdt~libl~,I)And that an issuance of our permit, a condition's going to be required to move that shed on the wetlands, and there's an old dock, I guess a floating dock and ramp should be removed also. MS. CANTARA: Okay. TRUSTEE KING: Did we have a problem with the in-shore, inland end of it? Our biggest problem is we don't want you going farther out in the creek. The landward end of the that catwalk can be extended landward. You have a proposed 4' by 19' landward extension, we don't have a problem with that. We don't want you to go out any further than what's out there now. MS. CANTARA: Okay. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Did you make a resolution? TRUSTEE KING: Are there any other comments? I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the landward extension of 4' by 19', no further extension seaward and they can have the 6' by 20' float with the ramp from the existing catwalk only, no seaward extension. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh And the removal of the floats in the wetlands, there are some old floats laying in the wetlands we want those removed, and that little storage shed should be removed. MS. CANTARA: Okay. So where did you want the float? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: In its current location. MS. CANTARA: Where it's proposed in the plan? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh No. It's current location in the field, in the creek, sorry. TRUSTEE KING: In other words, we'll disallow the extension seaward, that's not allowed. Just what's there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We'll need new plans unless you have other plans in here that show that. No, we'll need a new set of Board of Trustees 87 April 21, 2004 plans showing what's existing with the pilings and with the float as it is now. MS. CANTARA: Okay. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Did we make that motion? TRUSTEE KING: Make that motion. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I believe I seconded. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Peggy. 29. Land Use Ecological Services, Inc. on behalf of SKUNK LANE TRUST CIO BRADLEY AND MARY KRAUSE requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4' by 34' fixed timber catwalk, 3' by 18' ramp and 6' by 20'float. Located: 9105 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM #104-3-18.1 TRUSTEE D[CKERSON: Is there anyone that would like to speak in favor of this application? MR. LARSEN: My name is Peter Larsen. I live at 8925 Skunk Lane. My home and property borders Little Creek and is adjacent to the Krause property located at 9105. This is an unimproved 1.9 acre lot which the applicant purchased last year. This applicant also owns 9205 Skunk Lane. This is a three plus acre pamel with several hundred square feet of bay front on Hog Neck Bay and on Little Creek. There was a main house wi,th~ out buiidi'ngs. All the referenced parcels are designated by the;N:ew York State Department of State as critical environmental aCeas:worthy of protection, and the proposed dock site i~.unique in that three sides of the 9205 property surrou'nds an inlet creating a lagoon-type setting in it is a very .popular area for recreational activities, such as kaya~kirtg end cabgeing, and children are often seen snapper fishing-from rew.boats during ,the summer. The width of the creek is very narrow. Perhaps 20 to 25 feet across from mean logy tide to -- I mean, the mean Iow water to the mean Iow water. I'm very concerned that the construction of the dock as proPbsed for 9105 will really restrict access to recreational' §oaters primarily the kayakers and canoers as well as the row boaters. I also believe that the application rrtay violate a section of the Town's revised Wetlands Law,.specifically Code 97-27 Section C of the general rules~ Paragraph 5, which states that within the creeks and other narrow waterways, no dock length shall exceed one-third the total width of the water body. Determination of the length of the dock must include the dimensions cc' th, e vessel. The length of the dock includes the ramp as well~ as,the floating dock, that would be 38 Board of Tn~stees 88 April 21, 2004 feet. Meaning, they would need 114 feet of width to legally build that dock, perhaps 20 or 25 feet. Clearly if there's a boat docked there, no one will have access into this lagoon. I just found out that the Krause family has recently put -- they have purchased a new home in Cutchogue and they have put both parcels, 9105 and 9205 on the market as one unit. It's listed with Prudential Realty. However, the lot at 9105 Skunk Lane will be sold separately if the buyer of 9205 is not interested in the separate lot. The advertisement for Prudential states, and I quote, "Almost five acres of bay front beach. Private deep water inlet front to dock your yacht and sailboat." There's no way you can put a yacht in that Iittle harbor. You've got maybe three feet of water. It's very narrow and I question how this is possible. If this application is approved as-is, there would virtually eli~ninate any public water access into this inlet, and will, in effbct, be granting the applicant exclusive private use of this public waterway. I do want to state for the record that I have no objection to my neighbor being granted a permit to construct a dock on both parcels providing it does not violate the Town Wetlan~l laws and codes. It would seem to me it would make a lot more sense to build a dock that is in line with the proPerty that Would )'un east and west -- from west to east on the 9205 property. I don't have the blueprints with me, but-- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What do you mean west to east? MR. LARSEN: See how this dock currently jets out into the area, this is 9105, this is 9205. It would make more sense to have the dock more at this end so that public would still be able to use this area'for recreational purposes. By putting this dock there, you're cutting off access for everyone. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We couldn't quite understand. This dock is pretty much beached. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And you're correct, it used to be our policy, the one-third rule, but now we've codified it. MR. LARSEN: Codified it meaning? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's actually in the code. It's law as opposed to it being just a policy. The dock and the boat can't be more than one-third the way across. You're really limited here. Now Peggy can remember, this is the new channel and I do too. We're very familiar with this. MR. LARSEN: This also includes the length of the ramp, Board of Trustees 89 April 21, 2004 correct? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Well, the seaward end of the structure. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Structure and the boat combined can't exceed one-third of the width. MR. LARSEN: Right. But under Town Code in the definition, it's the dock plus the ramp. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh The whole structure? MR. LARSEN: The whole structure, which is 38 feet, which means you'd need 140 -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, no, the structure at the most seaward end plus, we're going from Iow water. MR. LARSEN: Right. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We're not going from where it starts here, no. MR. LARSEN: It's very tight. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI' We're very familiar with it. I mean, I remember before this was a channel here too. TRUSTEE FOSTER: There are cases where the actual channel is extremely to one side rather than in the middle, in which case the one-third rule wouldn't apply there because you have to consider the navigable water. So if it is in fact on the dock or float side of the channel itself where the deepest navigable water is, you're even more restricted. MR. LARSEN: This afternoon at 3:00 Iow tide, just a visual, if there's a boat docked there there's nobody getting through there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh This is the channel there and it went out to the bay like this. MR. LARSEN: I remember that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh When they dredged it in the early '60s the Trustees gave this whole channel away and the Commoners - you can read about the Commoners on the chart there on the wall - the Commoners owned all this marsh on that side and they gave it to the Trustees just lately, but they owned it. They predated the Trustees. They owned all this marsh out here and th~ barrier beach. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Little Creek? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Yes. They gave this marsh away also when the county d~edg.ed th s channe in the '60s, meaning they used to own it for whatever reason they just decided it was easier to cut it off and give it away. TRUSTEE FOSTER: So it kind of got abandoned, is what it amounts to. MR. LARSEN: Mine wasn't abandoned. You charge me taxes for my marshiand. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh This structure would have to be modified Board of Trustees 90 April 21, 2004 so that the structure with the boat on it couldn't exceed more than one-third of the way across. It's pretty tough. MR. LARSEN: Any restrictions as far as the size of the boat, particularly the beam? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No. That would be the restriction, one-third. Basically you could be looking at not a float just a catwalk with a tie-off pole. So the boat would be where the float would be. It's very limited. It depends on the size of your yacht, I guess. MR. LARSEN: And sailboat. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh It's a beautiful spot in that you could certainly pull up any kind of a small boat or Sunfish. MR. LARSEN: I also find disturbing is that you're going through the application process when the property is now on the market. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's normal. TRUSTEE FOSTER: It increases the value. Sell it with a permit on it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay. TRUS'~EE POLIWODA: Also skeptical of the four feet mark, who measured the soundings? MS. C,~XlTARA: We actually did soundings twice out there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh You had four feet? MS. CANTARA: There was actually a couple spots where we had four feet. There was right in here and there even out here over here. You know, couple of times. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: We looked out at Iow tide and no way. MR. L~RSEN: I go there out at Iow tide and there's no way there's four feet. MS. CANTARA: We can do soundings again. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't think it's water depth, it's the width of it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to table Skunk Lane Trust c/:o Bradley and Mary Krause. TRUS'~EE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUS'FEE KRUPSKI: You're going to have to come up with a dock with boat that doesn't violate a one-third rule. 30. Alpha Consulting on behalf of PETER CO$OLA requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4' by 28' open pile fixed pier, a 3' by 15' hinged ramp, a 6' by 20' float and one (1) float pile, and a 4' by 6' ramp landward of the existing wall to access fixed pier. Located: 2880 Minnehaha Boulevard, Southold. SCTM #87-3-343. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Would you like to comment on this Board of Trustees 91 April 21, 2004 application? MR. ANGEL: Good morning, Ted Angel, Alpha Consulting on behalf of Peter Cosola. I'd like to interject that Mr. Johnston said I could stay up late today. This application is the replacement of a one time existing dock in the same location that was wiped out by a hurricane when the Beige family owned it, and at this time the application is to replace it for Mr. Cosola. It has DEC approval, and it's just waiting for the Trustee permit. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: The only recommendation I had was to make it three feet wide instead of four feet since it's such a short structure, just keep it small, downsize it. DEC won't, they won't hammer you on that one, just build it. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Why?. Can't get a wheelchair down there. MR. ANGEL: He has young kids too. There is quite a bit of space, as you saw on the inspection. I think you missed that one, but the rest of the Board was there. I saw you on the second one. You know the location. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Yes. MR. ANGEL: Basically, because it's such a wide area, if you don't object.and we could keep the four foot wide. TRUSTEE KRL[PSKh I'*gree with Ken, try to make it three feet. I have chiltt.ren, I don't care if it's 20 feet wide, they're going to{be on the edge. They're not going to be in the middle. If ~ey'have a problem with the three feet, let them come bacl~an, d w.e can amend it. Is that fair, Ken? TRUSTEE · PO L1.V~':© D^: Sure. TRUSTEE KR,~VSI<r: Let them come back and you can call them tomorrow and .~ lb'ok, !he Board really wanted three feet because they wCq~tCd to,minimize the structure. If they have a huge problem.come back and amend it. MR. ANGEL: El'LC goingljon the assumption that it's okay with them, we can ce, ncl~de:it this evening? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Sure. Any other comments? I'll make a motion to close~.he,publlic hearing. TRUSTEE DIC~I~RSON: Second. TRUSTEE PO~WODA: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland Permi~to construct a 3' by 28 open fixed pier, and a 3' by 15' hingbd'ramp,, and 6' by 20' float with one full pile in a 4' by ff..ramp I~ndward. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE FO~EI~: Second. TRUST~_E POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES. 31. Alpha Consulting on behalf of RICHARD M. BLAIR request a Wetland Permit to install a 4' by 28' fixed pier, a 3' by 15' ramp and a 6' by 20' float to be accessed by Board of Trustees 92 April 21, 2004 stairs from grade to 4' level above vegetated areas. Located: 900 Mason Drive, Cutchogue. SCTM #127-3-9.1 MR. ANGEL: Ted Angel Alpha Consulting on behalf of Richard Blair. On this particular application initially it was the 28' ramp and stairs, and at the time of the inspection a week ago last Monday, the Board of Trustees was on the site, and I had indicated at that time that we changed it a bit to completely limit any impact on the wetlands by creating a ramp onto a fixed pier all forward of the vegetation line. And initially -- you had, I should say you had at the time of the inspection the revised site plan showing the larger structure, and this is almost analogous now to the application Number 5 that we heard earlier where the DEC wants 4 foot depth and basically that's pretty much what dictated this particular app!ication site plan, going out to 4 feet at the beginning of the float. We're talking about an area where there was some notches cut into the marsh many years ago. I'm sure you're very familiar with it. One of the -- call it a -- redeeming factor on this particular application is to the west and to the east of this parcel there are existing structures that are more seaward than what was originally proposed here or what I'm proposing at this time. I brought some additional photographs beoause on the eastedy side of the Blair property there is a bulkhead extending an additional 18 feet out beyond the four foot mark that we have for the float, and I would ask the Board's consideration that since this is an open area, and there's a lot of distance to the other side where the'waterway is rather wide, that we be allowed to be in conformity wfth the existing neighboring properties and structures. And with the Board's permission, we would have a float situated where the beginning of the float is at the four foot mark.and it would go a little bit deeper at its length of 20 feet. And it would not be intruding on any navigation channel because any navigation here would have to be seaward of the existing structures on either side of the Blair property. Yes, sir. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I was surprised to learn previous I think it was Geert Martens, that the DEC a float, I think it was two feet. Have you gone to the DEC with this? MR. ANGEL: It's in. I madethe change off the initial one. It's under ~nalysis, but this is a permanent structure. I think that two and-a-half foot was a seasonal. TRUSTEE KING: The float was seasonal. Board of Trustees 93 April 21, 2004 TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Only the float, you could make this a seasonal. MR. ANGEL: But since the bog already projects on both sides out, and it's a pocket, and it's directly in front of the property. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh You said you had additional pictures? MR. ANGEL: Yes, I just wanted to show you. This bottom one, this easterly shot I believe is it, you can see this additional "L" shape there. And since this would not be going out any further than that, if you would consider it where at least it would be in conformity with the other structures, it wouldn't be going out any further. We would limit it to that and make any necessary adjustment. Because you have other structures, and there's the pocket. It is protected,' but we'd like to have the 4 feet and satisfy the DEC, but we have to satisfy you too. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Honestly, I would split the baby and go in 10 feet then, Y°u still have 4 feet of water under the water. We want to keep it as tight as possible. TRUSTEE POLI3NODA: Wash that 4 feet. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I say go from 4' by 40' fixed, I would think they would be happy with that. You still got the 4' by 40' ramp. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: 4' by 40' fixed. MR. ANGEL: I'm giving up something on the ramp from the float as well, 4 feet. 4 foot give back for the ramp sitting on top of the float. We just want to stay at the four feet to keep the DEC satisfied. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI': Okay. Okay good. MR. ANGEL: Let me write that down. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI': I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor?. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Make a motion to approve the application with a new plan 4' by 40' fixed pier, 3' by 15' ramp and a 6' by 20' float. Do you need three piles there? MR. ANGEL: For stability's sake. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, three piles and which includes an access ramp in the foot path, a 3' by 16' access ramp from the foot path. Is there a second? MR. ANGEL: 3' by 157 TRUSTEE KRUPSKh 16. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Talking about two different things, talking about the ramp from the foot path is 3' by 16'. MR. ANGEL: Sorry, yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Second? Board of Trustees 94 April 21, 2004 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh All in favor?. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Do I have a motion to go back to the regular meeting? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So moved. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh All in favor? ALL AYES. (Time noted: 12:10 a.m.) JUL 1~1,~ 2004 -